MUHAMMAD YAQUB Versus STATE
This is an appeal by leave against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant, a Patwari, for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The appellant was originally tried under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and subsequently convicted under section 5-C(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 by the trial court, with a sentence of imprisonment, fine, and forfeiture of property. The High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal while reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone and maintaining the forfeiture. The core legal question examined was whether the High Court erred in rejecting the appellant's plea that the properties were purchased by his wife and brother from their own funds and whether the evidence established his possession under section 5-C of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Supreme Court held that the overwhelming documentary evidence and admissions established that the appellant provided the purchase money for properties registered in the names of his wife and brother, who lacked independent income sources, and that he failed to satisfactorily account for them. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether a public servant can be convicted for acquiring assets disproportionate to known sources of income when properties are purchased in the names of family members?
- Does the failure to prove independent sources of income of a spouse or relative justify the conclusion that assets were acquired by the public servant?
- Whether the appellate court was justified in maintaining the forfeiture of immovable property while reducing the sentence of imprisonment?
- Section 161, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5, Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 5-C(1), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.- -This is an appeal by leave against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 26th January, 1981, whereby the appeal of the appellant was dismissed with certain modification.
2. The facts are that the appellant was a Patwari in the Canal Distribution Division (East), Sheikhupura. On the information of C.0., A.C.E., Sheikhupura, an enquiry was held under the orders of the S. P. , A . C . E. , Lahore, into the allegations that the appellant had made assets which were disproportionate to his known sources of income. The enquiry revealed that the appellant in the course of his service purchased agricultural land in the name of his wife and brother to the tune of Rs.1,15,252, for which he did not submit any declaration. On the completion. of the investigation, the appellant was put to trial in the Court of Senior Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Punjab, where he was charged and tried for offences under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The prosecution in support of its case produced a number of witnesses. After recording the statement of the appellant, the learned Senior Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, came to the conclusion that the appellant had acquired property worth Rs.20,000 by improper means, which was disproportionate to his known source of income and thus convicted him under section 5-C(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentenced him to two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 or in default to undergo further six months' R.I. It was further ordered that the land covered by mutation No.547 of Kot Sonda and the property to the extent of Rs.7,000 covered by the plot relating to registered sale deed Exh. P.D. and the house constructed thereon shall be confiscated to the State.
3. The appellant then took up the matter in appeal to the High Court which was dismissed by the impugned order whereby the order of forfeiture of the immovable property was maintained but his sentence of imprisonment was reduced to one already undergone.
4. Leave was granted in this case to examine whether the High. Court had erred in not appreciating the appellant's plea that his wife and brother had purchased the properties in question out of their own fund and that there was no evidence to establish that the appellant was ever in possession of the properties within the meaning of section) 5-C of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The learned Judge of the High Court while dealing with the appeal, observed:
"The learned trial Court found on the basis of irrefutable documentary evidence that at the time the sale in favour of the appellant's brother was registered, the brother was not present at all and the sale consideration was paid physically by the appellant himself. The purchase of the land by the appellant's wife stands established not only by documentary evidence on record but also by the admission of the appellant who failed to prove that money had been provided by his wife's brothers. There is no evidence on record even to indicate much less to show, that the appellant's wife had any independent source of income. Further, no departmental permission appears to have ever been obtained for purchasing this property nor was the property proved to have been shown in any declaration of assets made by the appellant to the Government. The learned trial Court was, therefore, fully justified in holding that the appellant failed to account for the possession of the two pieces of land mentioned above to its satisfaction. "
We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant in the light of the above and we are of the view that there is overwhelming unimpeachable evidence that the appellant has acquired the properties disproportionate to his known source of income. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed.
S.Q/M-255/S Appeal dismissed.