Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MANZOOR HUSSAIN VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Khan Riaz-ud-Din AhmadMalik Muhammad Nusrat Mahal,Muhammad Akram for the State.
1993 P Cr
1993 P Cr. L J 2638
[Lahore]
Before Khan Riaz-ud-Din Ahmad, J
MANZOOR HUSSAIN ---Appellant
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Cr. A. No.785 of 1988, heard on 13th October, 1992.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----
----S. 409---Accused, who was convicted and sentenced by Trial Court, without questioning his conviction, had confined his submissions in appeal only to quantum of sentence---Accused had contended that he had been facing agony of trial since long and in pursuance of case against him he had lost his job and his entire family was reduced to starvation---Accused further submitted that with great difficulty he had managed to get another job and if he was sent to jail, it would be a great hardship for his family---Accused prayed that sentence already undergone by him, should be treated as sufficient---Request of accused, was not opposed by prosecution---High Court while upholding conviction and fine, reduced sentence of accused to one already undergone by him.
Malik Muhammad Nusrat Mahal for Appellant.
Muhammad Akram for the State.
Date of hearing: 13th October, 1992.
JUDGMENT
This is .an appeal by Manzoor Hussain appellant, who has been convicted under section 409, P.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 9 months with a fine of Rs.3,000 or in default to undergo further R.I. for 3 months, in the event of realisation of fine, Rs.2,100 to be paid to Muhammad Yusuf P.W.1, by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha, vide his judgment, dated 3-7-1988.
2. The prosecution case briefly stated is that Muhammad Yusuf (P.W.1) purchased -a Commercial Plot No.14 in open auction. On 3-11-1975, he paid an amount of Rs.2,008.50 to Manzoor Hussain appellant who was Head Clerk in the Sargodha Improvement Trust, against a receipt dated 3-11-1975 (Exh.PA./1) but the appellant did not deposit the said amount in the account of the Improvement Trust, obliging the said P.W.1 Muhammad Yusuf to make a complaint (Exh.P.B.) to the Secretary, Improvement Trust, Sargodha (P.W.4), who, vide his letter/complaint (Exh.P.D.) sent the same to the Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Sargodha, alongwith its enclosures, for registration of a case against the appellant, in view whereof a case F.I.R. No.19, dated 14-2-1978 under section 409/466/468/471 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was registered against the appellant at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Sargodha. After due investigation, the appellant was challaned to face the trial.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution produced six witnesses, namely, Muhammad Yusuf P.W.1, Idrees Ahmad P.W.2, Mumtaz Khan. Inspector P.W.3, Rai Shabbir Ahmad, complainant P.W.4, Pervez Shah, Inspector P.W.5 and Malik Muhammad Nawaz P.W.6. Can the other hand, the appellant denied the allegations against him. He also appeared on oath in disproof of the allegations and charges against him as D.W.1. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned State Counsel and perused the record with their assistance.
5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant, without questioning the conviction, confined his submissions to the quantum of sentence stating that the appellant has been facing the agony of the trial since 1983; that in pursuance of the case against him he lost his job and his entire family was reduced to starvation; thereafter with great difficulty he managed to get another job and now if sent to jail, it would be a great hardship for his family, thus, the sentence already undergone be treated as sufficient, which is not opposed by the opposite side. In these circumstances, while upholding the conviction and fine, I reduce the sentence of the appellant to the one already undergone. He is on bail. His bail bond shall stand discharged.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
H.B.T./M-684/L Order accordingly.