1973 PLP 99 (SCMR)
ABDUL MAJID NIZAMI‑ — Appellant Versus THE STATE‑ — Respondent
| Citation | 1973 PLP 99 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL MAJID NIZAMI‑ — Appellant Versus THE STATE‑ — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1973 PLP 99 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1973 PLP 99 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1973 PLP 99 (SCMR) (ABDUL MAJID NIZAMI‑ — Appellant Versus THE STATE‑ — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Kaikobad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Aziz Dastgir, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Appellant.
- Date of hearing : 6th February 1973.
- Usman‑i‑Ghani, Assistant Advocate‑General, Sind (S. Murtaza Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by M.I. Menton, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, dated the 11th November 1970, in Criminal Appeal No. 395 of 1970). Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 409 read with Ss. 65 & 57 Criminal misappropriation by public servant‑Sentence of four year`' imprisonment in lieu of default in payment of fine‑Legal. The offence of criminal misappropriation by a public servant under section 409, P. P. C. is punishable with transportation 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. 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. Transportation translated an terms of imprisonment means impri sonment 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 a case in lieu of fine does not exceed one‑fourth of the maximum, as provided by section 65 of the Penal Code. Usman‑i‑Ghani, Assistant Advocate‑General, Sind (S. Murtaza Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by M.I. Menton, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Judgment & Decree
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. 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. 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. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.