Find a Lawyer

prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)

--- S. 5 (2)-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161-Accused employee of a department dispensing justice--High Court reducing sentence of accused from 2 years' R. 1. to 2 months' R. I. with benefits under S. 382-B, Cr. P. C. resulting that accused who was already on bail remained at liberty-High Court passing such order on ground that "there is nothing on the record to suggest that the appellant was in the habit of receiving bribes and he had suffered over the years"-Supreme Court finding that guilt had been squarely brought home to accused through reliable evidence and accused was treated very leniently by High Court by reducing sentence although there was hardly any ground for such reduction-Awarding of lesser punishment and showing leniency to such accused persons was disapproved by Supreme Court with a desire that such persons should be dealt with severely and awarded punishment deterrently and not with leniency.-[Sentence].

A. K. Dogar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmud A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

Date of bearing : 20th May, 1984.

ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-Mubammad Amin petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 31-3-1984.

2. He was serving as Mobarrir Pergana in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore. He is accused of having demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 50 in his above-noted capacity, from Zahoor Ahmad (P. W. 2) for transmitting the file of a case which was lying in the record room to the copy branch, so as to enable Zahoor Ahmad P. W. to obtain a certified copy therefrom at an early date.

3. Zaboor Ahmad informed the Anti-Corruption Department and a case was registered. A raiding party was constituted and the accused petitioner was caught red-handed receiving Rs. 50 as bribe on 25-1-1980.

He was tried under section 161, Cc. P. C. read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The learned trial Magistrate found hi guilty and sentenced him to 2 years' R. 1. The petitioner filed an appeal

before the High Court which dismissed the same but reduced the sentence of imprisonment from 2 years' R. I. to 2 months' R. I. and also gave him the benefit of section 382-B, Cr P. C. He was already on ball. The net result was that he remained at liberty.

The petitioner, however, does not appear to be satisfied and has filed the present petition.

4. In the first place the petition was barred by 12 days. But we condoned the delay and heard the petitioner's counsel on merits. We also went through the judgment of the High Court.

We notice that the High Court reduced his sentence on the ground that

"there is nothing on the record to suggest that the appellant was in they habit of receiving bribes and he had suffered over the years."

5. We find that on merits the petitioner has no case whatsoever, as the guilt has been squarely drought home to him through reliable evidence. Moreover, we are of the view that he has already been treated very lenient by the High Court, which reduced his sentence from 2 years' R. 1. merely to 2 months' R. I. although there was hardly any ground for the reduction.

6. There is a great hue and cry in the public that corruption is rampant in the country. This fact has even been acknowledged by the highest in the Government. It is not every day that an official of this type is caught red banded or for that matter even reported against for demanding and receiving bribe, because the poor litigant public who are fleeced by such minor official in the District Courts, have no option but to comply with their demands. The fact is that it is very seldom that a person takes the courage of reporting the matter fearing, firstly, that he might jeopardise his position vis-a-vts the Court officials and secondly that the would unnecessarily be involving himself in the agony of another case. It is, therefore, a matter for regret that the risk taken and the efforts made by the complainant and the police to bring the Accused to book have practically gone in waste. We feel that such persons, specially those (like the accused who are employed as public servants in institutions dispensing justice, should be dealt with very severely, if and when they are caught and proved to be guilty. The evil of corruption can never be eradicated unless it is dealt with an iron hand. The punishments awarded by the Courts should be deterrent and not as light as has been awarded in the present case because such light punishments will not serve an purpose and only act as an inducement to other public servants who ask for and obtain bribes, because of the belief that even if they were caught, which is rare, the punishment likely to be awarded, would only be trivial.

The petition is dismissed with the above observations, which shall be brought to the notice of the learned Chief Justice of Lahore High Court.

M. z. M. 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.