Admission of guilt

Respondents (postmen) gave an explanation before the Court that instead of delivering the said amount to the payees, they kept the same with them for 10/15 days, on asking of the payees, who were out of town

However respondents admitted that they were supposed to handover the money orders back to the Post Office if the payees were not available at the addresses

Service Tribunal itself took note of the fact that the respondents had used the money orders' amount for their own purpose and they were in the habit of committing misappropriation of the same amount but despite that took a lenient view, which was not warranted in law because misappropriation of the amount either meager or huge resulted in breach of trust which was reposed in a government servant and the delinquent had no right to be retained in service

Appeal was allowed, impugned judgment of Service Tribunal was set aside, and penalty of dismissal from service was restored.

Respondents (postmen) gave an explanation before the Court that instead of delivering the said amount to the payees, they kept the same with them for 10/15 days, on asking of the payees, who were out of town

However respondents admitted that they were supposed to handover the money orders back to the Post Office if the payees were not available at the addresses

Service Tribunal itself took note of the fact that the respondents had used the money orders' amount for their own purpose and they were in the habit of committing misappropriation of the same amount but despite that took a lenient view, which was not warranted in law because misappropriation of the amount either meager or huge resulted in breach of trust which was reposed in a government servant and the delinquent had no right to be retained in service

Appeal was allowed, impugned judgment of Service Tribunal was set aside, and penalty of dismissal from service was restored.

Appellant through an appeal under S. 30-A of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, assailed order passed by Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) whereby a fine was imposed on the appellant

Validity

Appellant had already recognized its unintentional mistake and had accepted the responsibility of the circumstances

Appellant could not be allowed to re-open the matter and dispute the facts which had already been acknowledged during proceedings before the Authority or Council or Complaints

Fine imposed by the Authority was within parameters and limitation of law

Appeal was dismissed.

Admission of guilt cannot be made sole basis for sentencing accused.

On the basis of admission alone, accused person could not be awarded a capital punishment because admission, as had been defined by Art. 30 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, was only a relevant fact and not a proof by itself

Proved, voluntary and true confession as envisaged in Art. 43 of the said Order, alone was proof against the maker

Admission of the accused could not be a substitute for a true and voluntary confession, and it could not be made the sole basis of conviction on a capital charge.