Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 27‑P to 34‑P of 1974, decided on 31st January 1975.

(On appeals from judgments and orders of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 9‑9‑1974, in Criminal References Nos. 153, 154, 155 & 156 of 1973).

‑‑S. 5(2) read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 409‑‑Criminal misconduct‑Sentence‑Contention that accused petitioners having had to face agony of protracted investigation and trial lasting for 5 years with threat of loss of their jobs and petitioners having pleaded guilty due to persuasive suggestion of trial Judge, charitable view in award of sentence was justified, held, not based on a point of law‑Sentence of six months' R. I. awarded by High Court, held, not excessive particularly in view of alarming pr portions assumed by modus operandi widely indulged in by Government servants resulting in colossal loss to public exchequer besides damage to moral fibre of Nation [cases of submission of bogus claims for re imbursement of medical charges].

‑‑ S. 439‑Sentence, enhancement of‑Enhancement of sentence made by Single Bench of High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction‑Not violative of any statutory provision.

P L D 1956 Kar. 476 ref.

Maqbool Elahi Malik, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Safdar Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in Petitions Nos. 27‑P, 28‑P and 29‑P of 1974).

Sh. Maqbul Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record (Absent) for Petitioner (in Petition No. 30‑P of 1974).

Malik Abdul Latif, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Safdar Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Petitions Nos. 31‑P, 32‑P, 33‑P and 34‑P of 1974).

Nemo for the State (in all the above Petitions).

Date of hearing : 31st January 1975.

These eight petitions for leave to appeal, Nos. 27‑P to 34‑P of 1974 are connected matters having a common back ground and involving the same question for determination. Petitioners in Petitions Nos. 27-P to 30‑P were public servants employed in different Departments of the Provincial Government of the N: W.F.P. who submitted bogus claims for reimbursement of medical charges, were tried by the Special Judge (Provincial), pleaded guilty and prayed for mercy of the Court. In Petitions Nos. 31‑P to 34‑P, Asadullah petitioner who ran a drug store. was sent up as an abettor with the other petitioners and also pleaded guilty.

2. The learned Special Judge taking a lenient view sentenced the peti tioners to imprisonment till the rising of the Court in addition to minor sentences of fine under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act/ 409, P. P. C.

3. Since these mal‑practices had assumed phenomenal proportions and notoriety of a racket, the District Magistrate, Peshawar, moved the High Court for the enhancement of sentences under section 439, Cr. P. C. The learned Single Judge allowed the revision petitions and vide his stereotyped orders of even date, enhanced the sentences of imprisonment to six months' R.I. in each case. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have moved these petitions.

4. In support of the petitions, learned counsel contended before us that having regard to the fact that the petitioners had to face the agony of protracted investigation and trial lasting for five years from 1968 to 1973 with the threat of loss of job or business into the bargain, a charitable view in the matter of award of sentence was justified as taken by the trial Judge whose persuasive suggestion, according to the instructions of the learned counsel, prevailed upon the petitioners to plead guilty. We are not impressed by this contention which is not based on a point of law. Even otherwise, the alarming proportions assumed by this modus operandi widely indulged in by Government servants resulting in colossal loss to the public exchequer besides damage to the moral fibre of the Nation, which led to the abolition of the age old procedure by the Government, we are not inclined to think that the sentences awarded by the High Court in exercise of its discretion not usually open to challenge in this Court, are in any manner excessive.

5. Learned counsel next contended on the basis of P L D 1956 Kar. 476, that although a notice for enhancement of sentence could be issued by a Single Judge, the decision for enhancement could only be taken by a Division Bench according to the High Court Rules and Procedure. Learned counsel could not produce before us any rule to this effect. There is nothing to show that an order of enhancement made by a learned Single Judge of the High Court in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction is violative of any statutory provision so as to be rendered invalid. The petitions have no force and are hereby dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.