1980 P Cr (PLP)

Fazal Din and Maqbool Shah were tried by Senior Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Punjab, Lahore on number of charges brought out against them. Fazal Din a peon employed in Tehsil Office of Gujranwala was found guilty under sections 420, 409, 468, 471, 109, P. P. C. read with section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and was also ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Maqbool Shah, who was employed as Patwari was found guilty under sections 420, 109, P: P. C. read with section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption ct, 1947 and was awarded tire same sentence which was awarded to Fazal Yin. Air appeal has been filed against the order of. conviction .by the convicts and a petition for suspension of sentence has also been moved under section 426, Cr. P. C. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellants has contended that the evidence adduced by the prosecution .in support of various charges brought out against the appellants was wholly. unreliable and that the learned Senior Special Judge has erred in holding the appellants guilty and convicting them for the various offences mentioned above. It has also been urged on behalf of the appellants that their appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future and as such the order of sentence passed against them may be suspended and the appellants may be released on bail. Reference in this connection has been made to Yousuf ands others v. The State (1977 P Cr. L J 134).

2. The petition for suspension of the operation of the order of sentence has been opposed on behalf of the State and the learned State counsel has contended that there is overwhelming evidence on record to sustain the order of conviction and that delay in the disposal of the appeal alone is no ground for suspending the order of sentence and releasing the appellants on bail. In support of the above arguments, reliance has been placed on P L D 1978 Lah. 1349.

3. I have considered ‑ the arguments of the parties' counsel. A minute examination of the evidence on record does not seem to be proper while disposing of a petition under section 426, Cr. P. C. as the proper stage for ‑such examination is at the time of hearing the appeal itself. Fazal Din appellant is accused of having sold a piece of land on the basis of a forged entry in the revenue record made by Maqbool Shah appellant. Prima facie the prosecution has succeeded in making out a case against the appellants.

4. The delay in the disposal of the appellants' appeal cannot be considered as a ground for allowing them bail or for suspending the order of sentence passed against them for the similar reasons as given in the case relied upon by the State counsel. I, therefore, do not see any ground for allowing the appellant's petition under section 426; Cr: P. C. and the same is dismissed. The appellants however may apply for suspension of the order of sentence under section 426 (1) (a), Cr. P. C. if their appeal is not disposed of within 6 months from the date of order of their conviction. Petition dismissed.