Sheikh MUKHTAR and others vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and sentences of the petitioners under sections 409, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, while reducing the sentence to the period already undergone due to the passage of time since the 1984 occurrence. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction based on the recovery of embezzled cement and tainted bribe money was sustainable and free from infirmity. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the factum of recovery of the embezzled cement bags and tainted money stood duly proved through the evidence on record and could not be discredited. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact regarding the recovery of incriminating material, when supported by credible evidence, warrant no interference by the apex court.
- Whether a conviction for embezzlement and corruption can be sustained when the recovery of incriminating material is proved on record?
- Does an appellate court's reduction of sentence to the period already undergone preclude the Supreme Court from upholding the underlying conviction upon challenge?
- Whether contradictions in cross-examination are sufficient to discredit a witness when the core recovery of embezzled goods remains established?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
ORDER
1. ' SH. RIAZ AHMAD, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 3rd of May, 2000 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court disposed of the appeal of the petitioners calling in question their conviction and sentences on charges under sections 409, 468, 471, Pakistan Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. ' Petitioner namely, Sheikh Mukhtar Ahmad was holding the office of Water Management Specialist while petitioner Abdul Rasul -Shamas was a Supervisor and the petitioner Aslam was a Clerk in the office of the Water Management Development Project at Layyah. The Department used to award contracts for the construction of various watercourses and one Saghir Ahmad Contractor was awarded such contract. He filed a complaint against the petitioner Abdul Rasul Shamas stating therein that he did not pass the bills for payment without accepting the bribe. At the time of passing the first bill amounting to Rs,24,000 complainant had paid Rs,500 and when he approached him for the preparation of second bill, a similar amount was demanded by the petitioner from the complainant. Thus a raiding party was constituted and tainted money was recovered from the petitioner. The second limb of the complaint lodged by the complainant was that petitioner had also embezzled 100 bags of cement. In course of investigation, petitioner led the police to the house of Muhammad Akram from where 100 bags of cement were recovered.
3. ' Learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption who held the trial of the petitioners found them guilty and convicted and sentenced them accordingly. Petitioners assailed their conviction before the Lahore High Court and the learned Single Judge seized of the matter took a lenient view of the matter considering that the case was too old the occurrence having taken place way back in 1984, therefore, the sentences already undergone by them were considered appropriate to meet the ends of justice.
4. 'Mr. Muhammad Asghar Khan Rokhri, Advocate Supreme Court representing the petitioners vehemently argues that no case against the petitioners was made out because the recovery in this case was doubtful. Learned counsel took us through the statement of Saghir Ahmed but we do not find infirmity therein. To the contrary, he has proved the recovery of 100 bags of cement. It was argued that Saghir P.W. In his cross-examination had admitted that when the stock was checked, bags of cement were found in accordance with the list and all the goods were'in tact, therefore, the question of embezzlement in this case was insignificant. We are afraid we cannot subscribe to the view taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner because such bags could not have been planted in collusion with the other officials. The factum of recovery in this case stands proved and it was not a case of any of the petitioners that these 100 bags of cement belonged to him.
5. For the foregoing reasons we do not find any merit in this petition and dismiss the same. Leave to appeal is refused accordingly.