MUHAMMAD IRFAN vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld the conviction of the petitioner for accepting illegal gratification. The petitioner, a public servant, was charged under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 after a raid conducted under the supervision of a Magistrate resulted in the recovery of tainted currency notes. The trial court convicted the petitioner, sentencing him to three years of rigorous imprisonment, which the High Court subsequently reduced to one and a half years. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner sought a further reduction in sentence, citing the loss of his employment, the agony of a protracted criminal trial spanning over ten years, and the fact that he had already served the majority of his sentence. The Supreme Court, noting the fairness of the state counsel in conceding the request, held that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone, while maintaining the conviction and the fine imposed.
- Can the Supreme Court reduce a sentence to the period already undergone in a corruption case where the trial has been protracted?
- Does the loss of employment and the duration of criminal proceedings constitute valid grounds for mitigating a sentence in a corruption conviction?
- Is a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 sustainable when the recovery of tainted money is supervised by a Magistrate?
- Section 161, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--This petition is directed against judgment dated 18-10-2001 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Criminal Appeal No,255 of 1999.
2. A criminal case F.I.R. No,14, Exh.P.C. Dated 12-7-1993 under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was registered at Police Station, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Sargodha, at the instance of Muhammad Nawaz, P.W.1. According to the prosecution case, the complainant approached the petitioner for obtaining a copy of Khasra Girdawari, in respect of the land of his son-in-law Muhammad Mumtaz, who demanded Rs,1,000 as illegal gratification. The complainant did not (sic) police Inspector, Naveed Anwar, P.W.2 made an application Exh.P.W. To the District Magistrate for deputing a Magistrate to supervise the raid which was allowed by order dated Exh.P.D./1. The Magistrate recorded the statement of complainant, Exh.P.E. The complainant also handed over the curreney notes of Rs,1,000 to the Magistrate with denomination of one currency note of Rs,500 and five currency notes of Rs,100 each P.1 to P.6. The Magistrate returned the same to the complainant aftertaking down their numbers. The tainted currency notes P.1. To P.6 and copy of Khasra Girdawari Exh.P.D. Were recovered from the pocket of the petitioner pursuant to a raid conducted by the police under the supervision of the Magistrate.
The raiding Magistrate recorded the statement of the petitioner, handed over his custody to the police alongwith the raid proceedings and report for further necessary action and investigation.
3. After investigation of the case and obtaining sanction for prosecution Exh.P.J. The petitioner was challaned to face the trial. The petitioner denied the charge. The prosecution in all examined four P.Ws., tendered the documents Exhs. P.A. To P.N. In evidence. The petitioner was examined by the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Sargodha, under section 342, Cr.P.C. The petitioner also tendered documents mutation Exh.D.A. And a copy of Roznamcha Exh.D.B. In evidence. The trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the charge under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, convicted and sentenced him to suffer 3 years R.I. And fine of Rs,2,000 and in case of non-payment of fine to further suffer 9 months R.I. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also given to the petitioner. The petitioner filed a Criminal Appeal No,255 of 1999 which was dismissed by Lahore High Court, Lahore by the impugned judgment dated 18-10-2001.
However, the High Court reduced the sentence of the petitioner from 3 years to 1-1/2 years. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3-A. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner on 10-1-2003, we issued a notice to the Advocate General only, on the question of quantum of sentence. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had suffered loss of service on account of his conviction and sentence. He had also faced protracted criminal trial and other proceedings for over a period of 10 years. He had already served actual imprisonment for more than one year and only 2 or 3 months were left for the expiry of his sentence of 1-1/2 years. It would serve the interest of justice if the sentence of the petitioner was reduced to that already undergone by him.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Advocate General, Punjab, to be fair to him, frankly stated that it would meet the ends of justice if the remaining sentence of the petitioner was reduced to that already undergone.
5. We have heard both the learned counsel at some length. The petitioner has suffered an agony of protracted trial and subsequent criminal proceedings for over a period of 10 years. He is stated to have already served out the sentence for more than one year. Besides, he has also lost his service.
In the circumstances, it will meet the ends of justice if the sentence of the petitioner is reduced from 1-1/2 years R.I. To that already undergone by him.
6. For the foregoing reasons this petition is dismissed with the direction that the conviction of the petitioner shall stand but his sentence is reduced from 1-1/2 years R.I. To that already undergone by him. The petitioner shall be released from jail forthwith on payment of fine of Rs,2,000 unless required in any other case.