Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 729 of 1978, heard on 19th September, 1984.

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--

---S. 409--Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)--Ample oral and documentary evidence found on record to connect accused with commission of offences for which he was convicted and accused not caring to cross-examine most crucial witnesses--Accused only praying for reduction of sentence and not challenging conviction--Accused, held, had rightly not challenged conviction--Conviction maintained.

(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--

---S. 409--Prevention of Corruption Act (Il of 1947), S.5(2)- Sentence--Conviction not challenged by accused and sought leniency in sentence--Accused having suffered agony of protracted trial and very likely to be removed from service--Sentence of imprisonment altered to fine in circumstances.--[Sentence].

Ch. M.A. Majid Bajwa for Appellant.

Akbar Tarar for the State.

Date of hearing: 19th September, 1984.

The four Criminal Appeals Nos. 729, 730, 731 of 1978 and Criminal Appeal No.690 of 1980 arise from the judgment of the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, whereby he on 5-8-1978 and 4-6-1980 convicted the appellant under section 409, P.P.C. read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to one year R.I. and fine of Rs.500 in default thereof six months, R.I. in Criminal Appeal No.729/78, one year, R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 in default thereof nine months, R.I. in Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 1978, one year R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 in default thereof nine months R.I. in Criminal Appeal No.731 of 1978 and two years R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,200 in default thereof to further R.I. for six months in Criminal Appeal No.690 of 1980. I propose to dispose of all the appeals through this single judgment.

2. The learned counsel has not challenged the conviction of the appellant and rightly so because there is not only ample oral and documentary evidence on the record to connect the appellant with the commission of offences punishable under section 409, P.P.C. read with A section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 but also the appellant did not care to cross-examine the most crucial witnesses the head mistresses who had deposed against him. The learned counsel has requested for leniency in the matter of sentence. In the circumstances of the case that the appellant has suffered agony of protracted trial and that he may be removed from service. I feel inclined to alter the nature of sentence of imprisonment in each case to a fine of Rs.1,0008 in each case in default thereof, he would undergo R.I. for one year. The fine of Rs.500 in Criminal Appeal No.729 of 1978, Rs.1,000 in Criminal Appeal No.730 of 1978, Rs.1,000 in Criminal Appeal No.731 of 1978 and Rs.1,200 in Criminal Appeal No.690 of 1980 and R.I.in lieu thereof awarded by the trial Court is maintained. Resultantly, the appellant shall deposit Rs.7,700 with the trial Court within four months, failing which, the trial Court shall issue warrants for his arrest and detention.

S.A.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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