Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. 190 of 1984 and 185 of 1986, decided on 4th June, 1986.

(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 8‑5‑1984; passed in Criminal Appeal No. 571/76).

‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)‑Judge of High Court in appeals arising out of corruption cases dealt with by him always invariably set aside sentence of imprisonment and let off accused Civil servant with minor fine‑Practice of Judge being against dictum of Supreme Court in Muhammad Amin v. The State P L D 1984 S C 343 and Supreme Court thinking matter to be of consider able importance, asked official of the Advocate‑General's office if State would consider filing an appeal for enhancement of sentences, and on filing of petition by State, condoned delay in special circum stances of the case and granted leave to appeal in both the peti tions viz. against conviction and for enhancement of sentence with direction to the office that appeals arising out of such petitions and all other connected matters may be fixed for hearing as soon as possible.

Muhammad Amin v. The State P L D 1984 S C 343 ref.

S. M. Masud, Advocate Supreme Court and Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

Muhammad Akhtar, Assistant Advocate‑General and Rao Muhammad Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Date of hearing : 4th June, 1986.

This order will dispose of :

(i) Criminal Petition No. 190 of 1984 filed by Salabuddin against his conviction and sentence, and

(ii) Criminal Petition No. 185 of 1986, filed by the State for enhance ment of the sentence of the respondent in this petition.

2. Facts giving rise to these petitions are that at the relevant time the petitioner was employed as a supervisor in C‑Circle of the Office of Income‑tax Department at Lahore. The charge against him was that he demanded and accepted Rs. 200 from Muhammad Younas as illegal gratification for issuance of a T. P. Certificate. In support of its case the prosecution has relied mainly on the testimony of Muhammad Younas complainant, who passed the tainted money to the petitioner; Shamsuddin M.I.C. (P. W. 2) who conducted the raid and recovered the tainted money which the petitioner had thrown away on seeing him and Iqbal Hussain Shah (P. W. 5), Inspector, Anti‑Corruption.

3. The petitioner‑accused denied the allegation and put forward the plea of innocence in his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. The trial Court, however, believed the prosecution version and convicted the petitioner under section 161, P. P. C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced hits to 3 months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500.

Salahuddin (petitioner) filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court upheld his conviction on the ground that charge of demanding and receiving bribe had been proved against him. It, however, allowed the appeal partially inasmuch as it set aside sentence of imprisonment. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows :‑

"Coming to the question of sentence, I feel inclined to alter nature of the sentence inasmuch as the appellant has not only lost his service but also suffered agony of protracted trial. The sentence of imprisonment for three months is, therefore, altered to a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default thereof R. I. for three months. The fine of Rs. 500 and sentence of three months in default thereof is also maintained. The appellant shall pay Rs. 1,500 in the trial Court within a month otherwise he would suffer R. I. for six months. . ."

4. We have been noticing of late that in appeals arising out of corruption cases dealt with by the same learned Judge of the High Court that he always invariably sets aside the sentence of imprisonment and lets off the accused‑civil servant with a minor fine. In view of the fact that this practice is against the dictum of this Court in Muhammad Amin v. The State (PLD1984SC343), we asked the official of the Advocate‑General's Office whether A the State would consider filing an appeal for enhancement of sentences. The State has filed Criminal Petition 185 of 1986 praying that the sentence of Salahuddin respondent, may be enhanced.

This petition is barred by time. However, in the special circumstances of this case we consider it proper to condone the delay and order accord ingly.

5. Counsel for the petitioner (in Crl. P. 190/84) that on reappraisal of the evidence it would be found that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused.

On the other hand the learned A. A.‑G. submitted that corruption is spreading in the country rapidly and it is only once in a blue moon that it is a civil servant is reported against and prosecuted. He submitted further that in such cases the investigation and trial are invariably pro longed by the accused persons themselves, by various devices, because it suits them ; the reason being that by the time the case is sent up for trial the witnesses have either died or are prevailed upon not to depose against the civil servant or are no longer interested in getting involved in the matter, and that it is in very rare cases that a corrupt civil servant is finally convicted. The learned A. A.‑G., therefore vehemently urged that as observed in the case of Muhammad Amin (supra) the sentence of the accused‑respondent should be adequately enhanced so as to deter other civil servants from fleecing the public.

6. We feel that the matter is of considerable importance. Leave is, therefore, granted in both the cases. Appeals arising out of these petitions and all other connected matters may be fixed for hearing ,as soon as possible.

M.B.A. Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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