MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus STATE

ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑ This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No.59 of 1987 filed by Malik Muhammad Khan, accused‑appellant against his conviction and sentence; and Criminal Appeal No.60 of 1987 filed by the State for the enhancement of sentence of the accused‑appellant.

2. Facts giving rise to these Appeals are, briefly, that at the relevant time Malik Muhammad Khan accused (Appellant in Crl.A.N0.59/1987) was posted as a patwari in Village Ghullapur. He was approached by Lal Khan, PW.2 (complainant) to obtain the copy of a mutation. Mohammad Khan patwari demanded Rs.8,000 as illegal gratification for the same. The complainant paid him Rs.7,500. He did not take any action and insisted on being given another Rs.500.

Feeling aggrieved the complainant approached the Anti corruption Establishment and reported the matter, whereupon an FIR (Ex.PK) was recorded on 26‑3‑1985. The Circle Officer produced the complainant before Ch.Imtiaz Ahmad, City Magistrate, who recorded his statement. The complainant gave currency notes worth Rs.500 to the Magistrate who noted down the serial numbers of the same and returned them to the complainant. A Raiding Party comprising of Zahoor Shah, Circle Officer, Anti‑Corruption Establishment headed by Ch.Imtiaz Ahmad, Magistrate, was formed on the same day. The place of payment of money suggested by the accused‑appellant was the Bus Stand of Kot Moman. The raiding party reached the above said place led by the complainant at 5.30 p.m., but on reaching there they were told that the patwari had gone to patwarkhana Gullapur. The complainant therefore, went to the Patwarkhana Gullapur to contact the appellant, accompanied by the afore‑mentioned members of the raiding party. After meeting the appellant, the complainant passed on the tainted money to the former. He then gave a signal, on which the Magistrate and other members of the raiding party entered the Patwarkhana. The Magistrate saw the patwari holding the currency notes in his hand. But seeing the raiding party he (i.e. the said patwari) threw the tainted currency notes under the cot on which he was sitting. The Magistrate picked up the same from under the cot and noting the serial numbers he found that they tallied with those of the tainted currency notes, which had been noted down by him. He then recorded the statement of the accused and the matter was handed over to the Anti‑Corruption Establishment for investigation.

At the trial the prosecution case was supported by all the witnesses. The accused‑appellant, however, denied his guilt and produced four witnesses in defence saying that he (the appellant) had been involved falsely.

3. The learned trial Court relied on the prosecution evidence, and finding the accused guilty of the said offence convicted him under section 161 P.P.C. and sentenced him to 3 years' R.I. and awarded a fine of Rs.6,000 (in default whereof to further 3 months' R.I.).

4. The accused filed an appeal before the High Court against his conviction and sentence.

On perusing the case at the time of the admission the learned High Court felt that it was a case in which the sentence awarded by the trial Court was inadequate, and issued a suo moto notice to the appellant requiring him to show cause why his sentence should not be enhanced. This gave rise to Criminal Revision No.593 of 1985.

Both the matters, i.e. the appeal and the criminal revision were heard together by the High Court, which after hearing the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the criminal revision as well as the appeal filed by the appellant‑patwari. But while dismissing the appeal the learned High Court reduced the sentence of the appellant‑patwari to that already undergone by him. The sentence of fine was, however, maintained. At that time the appellant‑patwari had only served 20 days of his sentence of imprisonment.

The reasons for reduction in sentence of imprisonment recorded' by the High Court in paragraph No.7 of its judgment were:‑

(i) that about 3 years have passed since the occurrence had taken place;

(ii) that the appellant had suffered the agony of trial;

(iii) that he has lost his service, and

(iv) that he had remained in jail for about 20 days after his conviction.

But the appellant did not feel satisfied and filed a petition for leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence. The state also filed a petition for enhancement of his sentence.

5. Both the appeals were heard together and decided by this court vide judgment dated 24-5-1987.

Malik Muhammad Khan (Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 59/87) filed a review petition and on showing error apparent on the face of the record with regard to the arguments addressed by the defence counsel, Mr. Waheeduddin Virk Advocate, the review was allowed, the judgment of this Court was recalled and it was ordered that the two appeals be reheard. The said appeals are, therefore, being reheard and decided together.

6. The learned counsel for Malik Muhammad Khan strenuously urged that his (Muhammad Khan's) sentence should not be enhanced. In support of this contention he sought support from the reasons recorded by the learned High Court in paragraph 7 of its impugned judgment.

7. As against this the learned Advocate‑General appearing on behalf of the State in both the appeals urged that keeping in view the circumstances of the case Malik Muhammad Khan, patwari, should not have been dealt with leniently. He submitted that corruption has become rampant in the country and to meet the situation it is necessary that corrupt officials should be dealt with an iron hand and deterrent punishment should be awarded to them in order to discourage other civil servants from demanding and accepting bribes. He, therefore, urged that Malik Muhammad Khan's sentence u/s 161 P.P.C. should) be enhanced.

8. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused‑patwari and the Advocate‑General, Punjab, in the light of the facts of the case. We have also considered the reasons recorded by the High Court for reduction of Muhammad Khan's sentence. The judgment of conviction is based on sound reasoning and does not merit interference.

9. We notice that there is public outcry against corruption from all quarters and there is great dismay that nothing is being done to stem it. Although the legislature has, of course, made laws to punish corrupt officials, but in the first place, the public at large considers it far easier to pay illegal gratification to get their work done. Secondly persons from whom bribe is demanded do not dare to report the matter and go through the worry of an investigation by the police and thereafter be pushed from court to court, as the experience is known to be so agonising that it deters others from repeating the performance. People who are daring enough to report the matter, hardly ever get anything except incurring the hostility of the concerned public functionaries. And even if after going through the turmoil of lengthy and tedious court proceedings they are able to prove the guilt of the concerned official, the accused is invariably let off with nominal punishment, as in the present case. Why should then a citizen take the risk and hazard of going to the authorities for reporting such matters. We feel that despite this Court's observation in Muhammad Amin v. The State P L D 1984 S C 343, the practice of awarding nominal punishment to corrupt officials does not create a healthy impression.

10. Courts rightly give benefit of doubt to the accused whenever there is the reasonable apprehension in their mind that the accused person might have been falsely involved, and are justified in acquitting such persons. But once the Court finds that the offence has been proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and convicts him of that offence, then there is no reason whatsoever of showing the culprits any leniency on the kind of grounds given by the High Court for reduction of the sentence of the accused‑appellant as in the present case; because, it is hardly conducive to give an impression that the courts are more concerned with the welfare of the accused rather than that of the society.

11. In the present case we feel that Malik Muhammad Khan appellant (in CrI.A.59/87) has been dealt with undue leniency and the grounds recorded by the High Court for reducing his sentence are wholly untenable. As such, while his appeal (No.59/87) is dismissed we allow the appeal (No.60/87) filed by the State for enhancement of his sentence and enhance the sentence of imprisonment of Malik Muhammad Khan accused to 3 years' R.I. The sentence of fine awarded to him is maintained.

M.I. /M‑490/S Order accordingly.