ABDUL MAJID NIZAMI vs The STATE
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the legality of a default sentence of imprisonment awarded in lieu of a fine under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The appellant was convicted of criminal breach of trust by a public servant and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 24,000, with four years rigorous imprisonment in default. Leave to appeal was granted solely to examine whether the default sentence exceeded one-fourth of the maximum imprisonment provided for the offence. The core legal question turned on the calculation of fractions of punishment under section 65 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, specifically how transportation for life is reckoned under section 57. The Court held that transportation for life is equivalent to imprisonment for 20 years, making one-fourth thereof five years. Consequently, the default sentence of four years was within legal limits. The appeal was dismissed.
- Whether transportation for life is reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for twenty years when calculating fractions of terms of punishment under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does a default sentence of four years imprisonment in lieu of a fine for an offence under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 exceed one-fourth of the maximum period of imprisonment?
- How is the maximum term of imprisonment calculated under section 65 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the substantive offence is punishable with transportation for life?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 57, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 65, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.----The appellant was convicted under sec--tion 409, P. P. C. Read with section 5 (1l) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentenced till the rising of the Court, and to pay a fine of Rs. 24,000, or, in default, to undergo R. I. For four years. On a leave petition, this Court decided by its order dated the 13th of January 1971, that the conviction of the petitioner was quite valid and maintainable on the evidence on record. However, leave was granted to consider whether the sentence of four years' imprisonment in lieu of fine was legally correct, as it could not have exceeded one-fourth of the maximum period of imprisonment provided under the Penal Code for the offence of section 409, P. P. C. For which the appellant was convicted The offence of criminal mis-appropriation by a public servant under section 409, P. P. C. Is punishable with transporta--tion for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to a fine.
2. A reference to section 57 of the Penal Code makes it clear that in calculating fractions of terms of punishment, transportation for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for 20 years.
3. Transportation translated in terms of imprisonment means imprisonment for 20 years. Therefore, one-fourth of 20 years would be five years, and in that case the term of imprisonment for four years awarded in this case in lieu of fine does not exceed one--fourth of the maximum, as provided by section 65 of the Penal Code. We would, therefore, hold that the imprisonment of four years in lieu of fine, as awarded in this case, is quite legal.
4. The appeal is dismissed.