1994 P Cr (PLP)

MA. War for the State. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 22nd March, 1993. This revision petition has been filed on behalf of the State under section 435/439, Cr.P.C. read with section 10(1) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 for the enhancement of the sentence passed by the learned Special Judge (Central) Lahore on 17-12-1988, whereby Zakir Hussain respondent was convicted under section 162, P.P.C. and sentenced to fine of Rs.50 only.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief against the respondent is that he on 23-10-1983 obtained Rs.50 as illegal gratification for Inayat Ullah Bajwa, Clerk, Registration Office, Sialkot from one Muhammad Yaqoob for preparation of his duplicate National Identity Card. The respondent was challaned and was produced in the Court where he pleaded guilty to the charge, and therefore, he was convicted under section 162, P.P.C. for taking gratification by corrupt and illegal means to influence public servant and accordingly he was sentenced to pay Rs.50 as fine. This petition is for the enhancement of the sentence.

3. It was contended that the respondent having been proved to have obtained Rs.50 as illegal gratification ought to have been sentenced as normally inflicted in cases of corruption. The fine of Rs.50 as a sentence would not meet the ends of justice and might serve as an encouragement for corrupt officials. The learned counsel also relied upon a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Malik Muhammad Khan v. The State P L D 1987 SC 500, wherein it was held that the practice of awarding nominal punishment to corrupt officials does not create a healthy impression.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and have also gone through the record very minutely. I find that this case was registered on 14-12-1983 and it remained pending investigation and trial for about 5 years when on 17-12-1988 the respondent pleaded guilty to the charge. Prima facie it appears that he after facing the agony of protracted trial had ultimately admitted the offence and surrenders before the Court for conviction. I have gone through the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and, with respect, I say that the facts and circumstances of the reported case are not identical to the case of the respondent. In that case tile accused had not pleaded guilty to the charge and was himself a Government servant. In this case the respondent appears to be a petition-writer sitting outside the Registration Office and as per his statement he admitted that he earns Rs.5 to 10 daily after making some payments to the clerks of the Registration Office.

5. In my view, due to the fact that this case was registered on 14-12-1983 and the order of conviction was recorded on 17-12-1988, five years after the A occurrence and, therefore, after maintaining the conviction against the respondent, the fine of Rs.50, and the agony of protracted trial faced by him, is sufficient in this case to meet the ends of justice.

6. Resultantly this revision petition .having no force is dismissed accordingly N.H.Q./S-483/L Revision petition dismissed.