BASHIR AHMAD Versus State

MUHAMMAD YAWAR ALI, J .---This judgment will dispose of Criminal 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 along with 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 F.I.R. bearing No.5 of 2006 dated 7-4-2006 for offence under sections 420/468/471/109, P.P.C. 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 pertain 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, Cr.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 Muhammad Younas" (2007 SCMR 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 afterthought.

9. It is trite law 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 cases "Muhammad Anwar and others v. The State" (1986 PCr.LJ 2164), and "Nawab Ali alias Nawab v. 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 v. The State" (2001 YLR 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.

H.B.T./B-7/L Appeal dismissed.