ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--This order shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No.59 of 1987 filed by Malik Muhammad Khan, accused-appellant against his conviction and sentence; and Criminal Appeal No.60 of 1987 filed by the State for the enhancement of sentence of the accuse--appellant.
2. Facts giving rise to these Appeals are, briefly, that at the relevant time Malik Muhammad Khan accused (appellant in CrI.A. No. 59/1987) was posted as patwari in Village Ghullapur. He was approached by Lal Khan, PW.2 (complainant) to obtain the copy of a mutation. Muhammad Khan patwari demanded Rs.8,000/- as illegal gratification for the same. The complainant paid him Rs.7,500/- but he did not take any action and insisted on being given another Rs.500.
Feeling aggrieved the complainant approached the Anti--Corruption Establishment and made a report to the Anti-Corruption Establishment whereupon an F.I.R. (Exh. PK) was recorded on 26-3- 1985. The Circle Officer produced the complainant before Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad, City Magistrate, who recorded his statement. The complainant gave currency notes worth Rs.500/- to the Magistrate who noted down the serial numbers of the same and returned them to the complainant. A Raiding Party comprising of Zahoor Shah, Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Muhammad Shafi and Inayat Ullah Constables of the Anti-Corruption Establishment headed by Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad, Magistrate, was formed on the same day. The place of payment of money as suggested by the accused-appellant was the Bus Stand of -Kot Moman. The raiding party reached the above-said place lead by the complainant party at 5.30 P.M., but on reaching there they were told that the Patwari had gone to Patwarkhana Ghullapur. The complainant therefore went to the Patwarkhana Ghullapur to contact the appellant accompanied by the -aforementioned members of the raiding party. After meeting the appellant, the complainant passed on the tainted money to the former. He then gave a signal, on which the Magistrate and other members of the raiding party entered the Patwarkhana. The Magistrate saw the patwari holding the currency notes in his hand. But seeing the raiding party he (i.e. The said patwari) threw the tainted currency notes under the cot on which he was sitting. The Magistrate picked up the same from under the cot and noting the serial numbers he found that they tallied with those of the tainted currency notes, which had been noted down by him. He then recorded the statement of the accused and the matter was handed over to the Anti-Corruption Establishment for investigation.
At the trial the prosecution case was supported by all the witnesses. The accused-appellant, however, denied his guilt and produced four witnesses in defence saying that he (the appellant) had been involved falsely.
3. The learned trial Court relied on the prosecution evidence, and finding the accused guilty of the said offence convicted him under section 161 PPC and sentenced him to 3 years' R.I. And awarded a fine of Rs.6,000/- (in default whereof to further 3 months' R.I.)
4.The accused filed an appeal before the High Court against his conviction and sentence.
On perusing the case at the time of the admission the learned High Court felt that it was a case in which the sentence awarded by the trial Court was inadequate, and issued a suo motu notice to the appellant requiring him to show cause why his sentence should not be enhanced. This gave rise to Criminal Revision No.593 of 1985.
Both the matters, i.e. The appeal and the Criminal Revision were heard together by the High Court, - which after hearing learned counsel for the parties dismissed the criminal revision as well as the appeal filed by the appellant-patwari. But while dismissing the appeal the learned High Court reduced the sentence of the appellant-patwari to that already undergone by him. The sentence of fine was, however, maintained. At that time the appellant-patwari had only served 20 days of his sentence of imprisonment.
The reasons for reduction in sentence of imprisonment recorded by the High Court in paragraph No.7 of its judgment were:- (i)That about 3 years have passed since the occurrence had taken place; (ii)that the appellant had suffered the agony of trial; (iii)that he had lost his service; and (iv)that he had remained - in jail for about 20 days after his conviction. But the appellant did not feel satisfied and filed a petition for leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence. The State also filed a petition for enhancement of his sentence.
5.We have heard both the appeals (Cr.A. 59 and 60 of 1986) together.
6. The learned counsel for the accused-appellant (Malik Muhammad Khan) made half-hearted attempt to show that the case against the appellant had not been fully proved.
On considering the matter in the light of the submissions urged by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant we are not persuaded to agree with him and feel that the charge under section 161 PPC has been squarely brought home to the accused-appellant.
Learned counsel for Muhammad Khan then urged that sentence of the accused should not be enhanced in view of the grounds mentioned by the High Court in paragraph No.7 of its judgment.
7. As against this the learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State (in Criminal Appeal No.60/87), vehemently- urged that keeping in view the circumstances of the case Muhammad Khan accused-appellant had been dealt with leniently and it was therefore a fit case for enhancement of his sentence.
8. The counsel for Muhammad Khan appellant (in CrI.A. 59/87) reiterated before us the same arguments which he had urged before the High Court. He vehemently argued that although corruption was so widespread in the country that it is no longer looked upon by the public functionaries as a bribe or illegal gratification but as their commission. He stated that as things stand today, the public functionaries do not feel any inhibition or sense of guilt while asking for or receiving illegal gratification; that it has become the order of the day to take bribe, which does not now carry any stigma. In other words, according to him the appellant cannot be said to have any mens rea and therefore cannot be deemed to be guilty of any offence, because taking bribe has now become a "way of life".
9.This view, indeed, reflects a very sad state of affairs. While on the one hand there is an outcry against corruption from all quarters, yet it is being defended on the ground that the public has accepted it as a way of life. The legislature has, of course, made laws to punish corrupt officials, but in the first place, public at large considers it far easier to pay illegal gratification to get their work done. Secondly persons from whom bribe is demanded do not dare to report the matter and go through the worry of an investigation by the police and thereafter be pushed from court to court, as the experience is known to be so agonising that it deters others from repeating the performance. People who are daring enough to report the matter hardly ever get anything except incurring the hostility of the concerned public functionaries. And even if after going through the turmoil of lengthy and tedious court proceedings they are able to prove the guilt of the concerned official, the accused is invariably let off with nominal punishment, as in the present case. Why should then a citizen take the risk and hazrad of going to the authorities for reporting such matters.
Despite this Court's observation in Muhammad Amin v. The State (PLD 1984 SC 343), the practice of 1 awarding nominal punishment to corrupt official does not create a healthy impression.
10. Courts rightly give benefit of doubt to accused whenever there is the slightest apprehension in their mind that the accused person might have been falsely involved, and are justified in acquitting I such persons. But once the Court finds that the offence has been proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and convicts him of that offence, then there is no reason whatsoever of showing the culprits any leniency on the kind of grounds given by the High Court for reduction of the sentences of the accused-appellant as in the present case, because it is hardly conducive to give an impression E that the courts are more concerned with the welfare of -the accused rather than that of society.
11. In the present case we feel that Malik Muhammad Khan apellant (in CrI.A. No. 59/87) has been dealt with undue leniency and the grounds recorded by the High Court for reducing his sentence are wholly untenable. As such, while his appeal (No.59/87) is dismissed we allow the appeal (No.60/87) filed by the State for enhancement of his sentence and enhance the sentence of imprisonment of Malik Muhammad Khan accused to 3 years' R.I. The sentence of fine awarded to him is maintained.
M.B:A./M-219/SSentence enhanc9d.