BASHIR AHMED vs STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the order of the Senior Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Punjab, Lahore, dated 17.6.2008, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced upon a confessional statement admitting guilt for offences related to fraud and corruption. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of an appeal against conviction based on a plea of guilty, and whether an accused can resile from a confessional statement voluntarily made before the trial court. The Lahore High Court held that by virtue of the bar contained in Section 412 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an appellant who has been convicted on a plea of guilty cannot challenge the legality of his conviction, and an appeal is maintainable only regarding the extent or legality of the sentence. The court established that a voluntary plea of guilty recorded on oath precludes the accused from subsequently resiling from it on appeal, especially when the appellant demonstrated acceptance of the verdict by depositing the imposed fine.
- Can an accused challenge the legality of a conviction recorded on the basis of a plea of guilty?
- Whether an appeal is maintainable against a conviction founded on a confessional statement?
- Is an accused permitted to resile from a confessional statement voluntarily made before the trial court?
- What is the scope of an appeal when a conviction is recorded on a plea of guilty?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5, Prevention of Corruption Act
- Section 47, Prevention of Corruption Act
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 364, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 412, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
This judgment will dispose of Crl. Appeal Nos,797, 798 and 799 of 2008 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals.
2. This appeal is directed against order of Senior Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Punjab, Lahore, dated '17.6.2008, wherein, the appellant was fined Rs,5000/- alongwith a direction that salary drawn amounting to Rs,85303/- be deposited in the Government treasury and in default of payment of fine undergo a sentence of S.I. for three months.
3. Brief facts of the case are that FIR Bearing No, 5 of 2006 dated 7.4.2006 for offence under Sections 420/468/471/109 PPC read with Section 5(2) & 47 of Prevention of Corruption Act, was registered at Police Station ACE, Pakpattan, against the appellant and four others. While the trial was in progress, the appellant recorded a statement on oath before Senior. Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Punjab, Lahore, which is re-produced below: -- "I have been defrauded by certain swindler, who tempted me to get the job against certain payment of amount, which I did pay to him and he, on his own, prepared certain fake documents relating to my educational qualification, which later on proved, as per version of the prosecution. I admit the guilt and leave myself at the mercy of the Court"
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the impugned judgment passed by Senior Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Punjab, Lahore, dated 17.6.2008, is liable to be set aside on the grounds that it has been passed without due application of mind; that statement of the accused could not have been recorded on oath and is violative of Sections 164 and 364 Cx.P.C. and that a direction issued for deposit of salary drawn by him to the tune of Rs,85303/- is against the law as enunciated by the Apex Court in case "Executive District Officer (Education), Rawalpindi Vs. Muhammad Younas" (2007 S.C.M.R 1835).
5. The appellant also filed an affidavit in this Court dated 12.9.2007, wherein, it is stated that the appellant did not make any confessional statement before Senior Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Punjab, Lahore.
6. Learned D.P.G has controverted all the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant and has stated that the appellant after having made a confessional statement before the trial Court cannot be allowed to resile from the same.
7. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
8. The appellant who appeared as an accused before Senior Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Punjab, Lahore, made a confessional statement so that the trial Court would take a lenient view in the matter as indeed has been done in this case. In the impugned judgment it is clearly written that the trial Court apprised the appellant that the statement confessing his guilt would be used against him for purpose of recording of conviction. The appellant after pondering over the matter on oath reiterated his confessional statement. A perusal of record would show that the appellant deposited a sum of Rs,5000/- on 15.7.2008 in the Government treasury, almost a month after the conviction having been recorded against him. This shows that he had accepted his conviction and present appeal is nothing but an after thought.
9. It is trite that the appellant is not entitled to challenge the legality of his conviction by virtue of bar contained in Section 412 of Code of Criminal Procedure, as has been held in case "Muhammad Anwar and others us. The State" (1986 P.Cr.L.J. 2164), and "Nawab Ali alias Nawab us. The State" (PLD 1972 Lahore 532). Once a conviction is recorded by a Court of competent jurisdiction on basis of a plea of guilty, an appeal would only be maintainable in respect of sentence that was imposed, as has been held in case "Shafi Muhammad Magsi us. The State" (2001 Y.L.R. 1917). In the present appeal, no objection with regard to severity of the sentence has been taken.
10.In this view of the matter, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.