MIAN NAZIR AKHTAR, J.---The appellant was tried by the learned Judge Accountability Court, Lahore for an offence under section 10(a) read with section 9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999. He was convicted of the said offence and sentenced to R.I. For 6 years with a fine of Rs,80,00,000. The appellant was formally charged on 17-8-2000 which reads as under:- "That during the period from 13th July, 1998 to 20th March, 2000, you Major (Retd.) Tariq Javed Afridi son of Malik Nadir Shah Afridi, resident of House No,48-A, Street No,16, Cavalry Ground Extension Lahore Cann., above-named accused, while posted as Managing Director, Cholistan Development Authority, Bahawalpur, being holder of Public Office, knowingly and voluntarily granted 559 proprietary rights, 78 Conveyance Deeds and 168 Conveyance Deeds about the lands/plots mentioned therein and which were under your administrative control, in violation of Notification dated 19-3-1995, issued by the Secretary Colonies Department, Government of the Punjab, by exercising powers of Collector which were never conferred upon you under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, by corrupt, dishonest, illegal means and in abuse of your position/authority and thus, allotted deceitfully and dishonestly, and thereby caused colossal loss to the State Exchequer, Cholistan Development Authority, Bahawalpur, and as such committed the offence of corruption and corrupt practices, within the meaning of section 9, and punishable under section 10 of NAB Ordinance, 1999 and Schedule appended thereto read with all the relevant provisions of earlier enactments mentioned in its section 35, within the cognizance of this Court. And, I hereby direct that you be tried on the aforesaid charge by this Court." In support of its case the prosecution produced 8 witnesses. P.W.1 is Faqir Hussain Shahid, Deputy Secretary Colonies, Board of Revenue, Punjab who produced letters written by the appellant for conferment of powers as Collector and the replies by the Board of Revenue as Exhs.PW.1/A to 1/H. He denied the suggestion that the appellant was made to understand by the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue, Punjab that conferment of powers of Collector was just a procedural matter and that he may carry out his job as Collector subject to formal conferment of powers. He further denied the suggestion that the appellant had acted in good faith in the best interest of the C.D.A.
And for betterment of the people of the area governed by the C.D.A. P.W.2 is Muhammad Shariq Masood Ansari who was produced to show that even the appellant's predecessors in their capacity as M.Ds. Cholistan Development Authority had been exercising the powers of Collector under the Act. He produced a list of eight previous M.Ds. As Exh.PW2/C who had granted proprietary rights to 1349 persons. P.W.3 Khadim Hussain who was posted as Senior Clerk,. Colony Branch, C.D.A. And had produced 133 files for grant of proprietary rights and conveyance deeds. These were exhibited as Exh.P.W.3/K-1 to 133. At the end of his statement he stated in all aforesaid cases the applications for proprietary rights or for execution of conveyance deeds were made during December, 1995 but no action, whatsoever was taken on these applications till mid of 1999". P.W.4 Allah Yar was serving as Senior Clerk Colony Branch of C.D.A. And produced 65 files for grant of proprietary rights (Exh.P.W.2/J-1 to Exh.P.W.2/J-65).P.W.5 Ikramul Haq was posted as Junior Clerk Colony Branch, C.D.A.
Who had produced 370 files (Exhs.P.W.5/L-1 to L-370) out of which 115 files pertained to proprietary rights while 215 to execution of conveyance deeds. P.W.6 Hafiz Jamil-ur-Rehman was posted as Assistant in the Office of Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division Bahawalpur had produced 35 files (Exh.P.W.6/A-1 to A-35) out of which 25 pertained to conveyance deeds and 10 to grant of proprietary rights. P.W.7 Muhammad Saleem was posted as Senior Clerk Colony Branch, C.D.A., Bahawalpur and had produced 210 files (Exh.P.W.7/A-1 to A-210) out of which 87 files pertained to conveyance deeds and 123 to grant of proprietary rights. P.W.8 Nasrullah Khan Bajwa was posted as Auditor Colonies C.D.A., Bahawalpur. He had assisted the Investigating Officer on the direction of the Secretary, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore.
3. The appellant was examined under section 342 of the Cr.P.0 in which he, inter alia, pleaded that he had acted bona fidely in the public interest and was not guilty of the offence alleged against him. However, after appraising the material on the record the trial Court convicted the appellant for an offence under section 10(a) read with section 9(a)(vi) of the NAB Ordinance and sentenced him to undergo R.I. For 6 years with a fine of Rs,80,00,000 or in default or payment of fine to undergo further R.I. 3 years. He was disqualified for a period of 10 years to seek any public office etc. Under section 15 of the Ordinance. He was given benefit of section 382-B of the Cr.P.C. His sentence was ordered to run concurrently with the sentence awarded to him in Reference No,22.
4. In his defence, the appellant produced the following documents (Exh.D/A to Exh.D/Y): I. Exh. D/A is inspection note on the working of the colony office of the Managing Director, Cholistan Development Authority, Bahawalpur recorded by Mian Faqir Hussain Shahid, Deputy Secretary (Colonies-I) on 19-8-1999 to 23-8-1999.
II. Exh.D/B is Letter No,224-99/Auditors (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, dated 31-12- 1999 from the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore to the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur on the subject: Execution of conveyance deeds through power of attorney.
III. Exh.D/C is Letter No,225-99/Auditors (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore dated 31-12- 1999 from the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore to the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division.
Bahawalpur on the subject: Grant of proprietary rights/conveyance deeds against the policy. IV.
Exh.D/D is Letter No,226-Auditors (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore dated 31-12-1999, from the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore to the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur on the subject: Illicit Cultivation.
V. Exh.D/E is Letter No,227-99/Auditors (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore dated 31-12- 1999, from the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore to the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Services General Administration and Information Department, Lahore, on the subject: Explanation of Messrs Mian Bashir Ahmad, Ex-Managing Director, Munir Akbar, Ex-Managing Director, Masood Ahmad Shah, Ex-Managing Director and Tariq laved Afridi present Managing Director, Cholistan Development Authority.
VI. Exh.D/F is statement of Nasruallh Khan Bajwa, P.W. Under section 161.
VII. Exh.D/G is list of affectees National Park, Laal Sohara, in Urdu version. VIII. Exh.D/H is Office Note of Patwari dated 14-10-1983, in respect of affectees of Laal Sohara.
IX. Exh.D/J is Office Note of field staff about affectees of Laal Sohara.
X. Exh.D/K is statement of Muhammad Akhtar, P.W. Under section 161 of Cr.P.C.
XI. Exh.D/L is statement of Muhammad Akhtar Ali, P.W. Under section 164 of Cr.P.C.
XII. Exh.D/M is Order of C.O. Dated 31-5-1999 regarding report about possession of land. XIII. Exh.D/N is Letter No,3025-96/2430-CL.IV, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, dated 3-9-1996 from the Deputy Secretary (Colonies-II), Board of Revenue, Punjab to the Managing Director, Cholistan Development Authority, Bahawalpur on the subject: Allotment of alternative land in Cholistan Mr. Saleem Mrtaza.
Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue. Punjab.
XIV.Exh.D/0 is order of M.D on Exh.D/N.
XV. Exh.D/P is Letter No,3025-96/2608-CL.IV, Board of Revenue, Punjab,' Lahore, dated 25-9-1996 from the Deputy Secretary (Colonies-H), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore to the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur on the subject: Allotment of alternative land in Cholistan Mr. Saleem Murtaza, Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab.
XVI Exh.D/Q is order of Chief Secretary dated 11-7-1996 regarding lifting the ban on the allotment of State land. XVII Exh.D/R is Office Note dated 18-3-1999 of Muhammad Idrees Ghoury-accused. XVIII Exh.D/S is Notice issued from the M.D dated 27-3-1999 on report Exh.D.R.
XIX Exh.D/T-Exh.D/T 6 is Notice to the applicant from the Court of M.D., C.D.A. Dated 27-3-1999.
XX. Exh.D/U.-Exh.D/U 4 is affidavit on stamp paper given by Nazir Ahmad.
XXI. Exh.D/V. Is statement of Allah Yar, under section 161 of Cr.P.C. (P.W.).
XXII. Exh.D/W is statement of Allah Yar, under section 164 (P.W).
XXIII Exh.D/X is statement of Talib Hussain, under section 164 (P.W).
XXIV Exh.D/Y is Roznamcha Waqiati--Pages 848454 to 848500.
4. The appellant's learned counsel submits that the appellant had granted proprietary rights to 8.00 persons as Collector under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 although he did not have powers to act as Collector, that he had already written to the Board of Revenue for grant of powers as Collector under the Act and he reasonably hoped that powers would be conferred on him in due, course; that the appellant had taken over as Managing Director of Cholistan Development Authority on 13-7-1998 and wrote the first letter to the Board of Revenue on 25-9-1998 for conferment of powers as Collector under the Act; that the powers were formally conferred on the appellant on 25-5-2000 prospectively; that like the appellant his predecessors had also been exercising the powers of Collector although they did not have the same at the relevant time. The learned counsel refers to the report of the Inspection Team regarding exercise of powers of Collectors by a number of M.Ds. Although they did not actually enjoy the said powers. It is mentioned therein that 167 conveyance deeds executed under orders of the appellant are void. It was recommended by the Board of Revenue that the concerned persons be heard and thereafter orders be cancelled; that the Inspection Team had made a recommendation for taking action against the appellant under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules; that despite the said report the Board had neither taken any action against the appellant nor made a move for cancellation of the conveyance deeds; that while deciding the cases of 800 persons the appellant did not derive any personal benefit and none of them was his friend or relative; that the persons to whom proprietary rights have been granted are lawful allottees of the land and had fulfilled the requisite conditions for grant of proprietary rights; that mere lack of powers did not constitute an offence under section 9 (a) (vi) of the Ordinance. Referring to the provisions of section 14 (d) of the Ordinance, the learned counsel submits that the appellant had used his authority in the public interest fairly, justly and for the advancement of the purpose of enactment; that there was no mens rea on his part to commit the offence; that there is no allegation that the appellant had received any illegal gratification or pecuniary benefit for allotting land or granting proprietary rights to the allottees; that the orders passed by the appellant were not challenged by the State; that the offence under section 9 (a) (vi) of the Ordinance is not one of strict liability because it is not made out merely because the authority was misused by an accused for any gain for himself or for any other person; that the appellant had duly followed the procedure laid down in Condition No,3 of Notification dated 19-3-1995 (Exh. P.W.3./A).
5. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prospector-General, N.A.B. Urged that the appellant was fully aware that he did not enjoy the powers as Collector under the Act but conferred proprietary rights on a large number of allottees and likewise granted conveyance deeds to a number of allottees by misusing his authority as M.D., Cholistan Development Authority, Bahawalpur; that the defence under section 14(d) is available to a person, who actually possesses the authority and then exercises it in public interest fairly and justly but the appellant had no authority at all and all his steps towards exercise of authority as Collector were totally unfair, unjust and clearly amounted to misuse of authority. He further urged that the appellant had usurped the powers of Collector and proceeded to pass orders on his behalf, therefore, his actions can hardly be termed as just and fair even if the same are passed in public interest. Malik Shaukat Ali, Advocate/Special Public Prosecutor, N.A.B. Urged that the files Exh.P.W.7/A-1 to A-210 suffer from a number of defects and deficiencies and when confronted with the same during his examination under section 342 of the Cr.P.C, the appellant merely stated that it was the job of the field staff to see whether the files were in order. He further stated that these deficiencies were neither examined by the appellant in the light of the concerned Revenue Record nor from spot inspection. He further submitted that in reply to question No,836, the appellant stated, "since I was vested with powers of Collector by virtue of Notification dated 5-5-1991 which is available on the record of this case, I could legally perform functions of Collector under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912." The learned Special Public Prosecutor urged that the said Notification pertained to conferment of powers of Collector under the C.D.A. Act and could not have been used to justify exercise powers of Collector under the Act of 1912. He added that the deficiencies and irregularities in grant of proprietary rights were highlighted by P.W.3 Khadim Hussain and P.W.4 Allah Yar. He further submitted that had the appellant enjoyed powers as Collector then there was no need for him to have correspondence with the Board for conferment of powers of Collector. He further urged that the acts done by the appellant were far from being bona fide, just and fair.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perusing the material on the record, we find that the prosecution has made out a reasonable case showing misuse of authority by the appellant. He conferred benefits to a large number of persons by granting proprietary rights to them or executing conveyance deeds in their favour. At the relevant time the appellant was M.D., C.D.A. And had powers under the C.D.A. Act to function as Collector but had no authority to act as Collector under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. This fact regarding lack of authority as Collector under the Act of 1912 was fully known to the appellant. The appellant had taken over. As M.D., C.D.A. On 13-7-1998. He wrote the first letter Exh.P.W.1/A (at page 597 of the record) to the Secretary Colonies, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore stating therein, "I have been exercising the powers of the District Collector as Deputy Commissioner for a number of years. It is requested that the powers of Collector under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 may kindly be conferred at the earliest". Through letter dated 21-10-1998 (Exh.P.W.1/B) the Board of Revenue asked the appellant to send proposal for conferment of Collector's powers through the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur. It was further stated therein that the powers were always issued by name and that the appellant had not mentioned his name in the proposal.
Thereafter, the appellant wrote letter dated 2-11-1998 (Exh.P.W.1/C) to the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur mentioning his name as well and soliciting conferment of powers of Collector. It appears that the matter remained pending and without formal conferment of powers the appellant started exercising the same. The matter came to the notice of the Board of Revenue whereupon the B.O.R. Wrote letter dated 13-1-2000 (Exh.P.W.1/D) to the appellant which is reproduced below:-- "During inspection of Colony Office of Cholistan Development Authority, Bahawalpur, it has been noticed that you are exercising the powers of the District Collector without its conferment by the Government.
2. You are directed to refrain from exercising the powers of District Collector, till its conferment."
' The Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur also wrote letter dated 24-1-2000 (Exh.P.W.1/E) for strict compliance of the directions of the B.O.R. (not to exercise the powers as Collector). On 8-2-2000, the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur wrote letter (Exh.P.W.1/F) to the BOR with his recommendation for conferment of powers of the Collector on the appellant. In its reply dated 9-3-2000 the B.O.R. Wrote to the Commissioner that his proposal was considered but the matter was ordered to be held up till the receipt of the appellant's explanation in reference dated 31-12-1999 made to the Services General Administration and Information Department. Subsequently, certain powers of Collector under the Act were conferred on the appellant through Notification dated 21-3-2000 (Exh.P.W.1/H) except the powers under sections 17 and 19 of the Act, 1912. It may be mentioned that section 17 pertains to the power of the Collector to allow any tenant to exchange his land subject to any order received from the Commissioner.
Section 19 of the Act bars transfer of rights vested in a tenant by any sale, exchange, gift, will, mortgage or private contract without the consent in writing by the Commissioner and declares any such transfer to be void and further provides that if transferee has been put in possession he shall be ejected under the orders of the Collector. The powers actually conferred on the appellant were as under- "( I) Under section 10 (3) (4) all powers regarding allotment of land/village sites.
(2) Under section 20 (a) to appoint a successor where heirs fail and the deceased tenant has not mentioned one.
(3) Under section 24 (a) powers to impose a penalty not exceeding Rs,10,000 (village sites and urban lands and regular leased out land or land under permanent Scheme).
(4) Under section 24 (b) all powers regarding resumption of the tenancy.
(5) Under section 25 powers to re-enter and to assess compensation for the tenancy.
(6) Under section 26 to re-enter and to assess compensation for building and sites allotted for residential purpose.
(7) Under section 32 to re-enter in case of squatters and trespassers and to resume possession of their lands.
(8) Under section 33 to authorise complaints.
(9) Under section 34 miscellaneous powers under subsections (i), (ii) and (iii)." Thus, it is evident that the above-referred powers were conferred on the appellant as Collector under the Act on 21-3-2000 with prospective effect. All that the appellant had done earlier was not validated.
7. Before proceeding further, we would like to examine as to what is the true connotation of the word "misuse" occurring in section 9 (a) (vi) of the Ordinance. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary (9th Edition), page 872 the word "misuse" means to use wrongly and apply to the wrong purpose. The Oxford (Advanced Learner's) Dictionary (5th Edition), page 747 gives its meaning as under:--
(i) To use in the wrong way or for the wrong purpose: misuse a word/an expression, misuse alcohol/public funds;
(ii) To treat badly. The Chambers' 21st Century Dictionary (Revised Edition), page 877 gives the meaning of the word "misuse" as under:-- To put something to improper or inappropriate use: To treat something or someone badly.
Since the word "misuse" has not been defined under the Ordinance, we will follow its ordinary dictionary meaning. In plain words misuse of authority would mean a wrong and improper exercise of authority for a purpose not intended by the law. A person may, in exercise of his authority, go wrong due to some ordinary human failing or error but this, per se, will not be actionable under the law. However, if a person knowingly and deliberately follows a wrong course of action and deviates from the purposes of law and proceeds to achieve some other objective either prohibited or not intended by the law then he becomes liable under the law. Therefore, mere erroneous order or lack of jurisdiction on the part of a public functionary will not amount to an offence under section 9(a)
(vi) of the Ordinance. However, If a public functionary deliberately uses or exercises his own authority or for that matter usurps the powers of another public functionary with the objective of gaining any benefit or advantage for himself or for any other person then he will be guilty of an offence under section 9(a)(vi) of the Ordinance. It is true that mens rea is a necessary constituent for every penal offence except those of strict liability. In this connection, the appellant's learned counsel has referred to Harris's Criminal Law (22nd Edition) published by Universal Law Publishing Company (Pvt.) Limited. At page 42, author says: "Clearly one must first look at the actual words of the section of the Act which create the offence in order to extract the intention of Parliament. The words of the section may show immediately an intention to create an absolute offence, or they may show that mens rea is required in some form or other in regard either to the offence as a whole, or to some particular part of the actus reus. This they may do explicitly by the use of such qualifying adverbs as ' maliciously ' , ' fraudulently ' , ' negligently ' , 'knowingly' or 'recklessly'. The mere fact that such words do not appear does not necessarily exclude mens rea, however." The author has quoted a passage from the judgment of Lord Gorrded in the case Brend v. Wood (1946) 62 TLR 462 which reads as under:-- "It is of the utmost importance for the protection of the liberty of the subject that the Court should bear in mind that, unless a statute, either clearly or by necessary implication, rules out mens rea as a constituent part of a crime, the Court should not find a man guilty of an offence against the criminal law unless he has a guilty mind."
The provisions of the Ordinance under consideration do not rule out mens rea and make the offence as one of strict liability. The very word 9 (a) (vi) read with referenced to the object of gaining any benefit or favour makes it abundantly clear that it means a deliberately wrong use of authority by a person to gain any benefit or favour for himself or any other person. Thus, the foundation of mens rea qua the offence under section 9 (a) (vi) of the Ordinance would be found in two elements: first conscious misuse of authority and second, gaining of any benefit or favour by the accused for himself or for any other person. The provisions of section 14 (d) of the Ordinance provides an important defence to an accused. If the accused succeeds in showing that he had "used" his authority in public interest, justly and fairly then he will be exonerated of penal liability.
These provisions also show that the offence constituted under section 9(a)(vi) of the Ordinance is not of strict liability. Here we may reproduce the provisions of section 14 (d) of the Ordinance, which read as under:-- "Where a person is accused of an offence under section 9 (a) (vi) and (vii), the burden of that he used his authority, or issued any directive, or authorised the issuance of any policy or statutory rule or order (SRO), or made any grant or allowed any concession, in the public interest, fairly, justly, and for the advancement of the purpose of the enactment under which the authority was used, directive or policy or rule or order was issued or grant was made or concession was allowed shall lie on him, and in the absence of such proof the accused shall be guilty of the offence, and his conviction shall not be invalid by the reason that it is based solely on such presumption: Provided that the prosecution shall first make out a reasonable case against the accused charged under clause (vii) of subsection (a) of section 9."
The defence provided under section 14(d) of the Ordinance is in respect of the offences created under section 9(a)(vi) and (vii) of the Ordinance. It is available to a person who uses "his" authority which would really mean use of authority lawfully possessed by him. Thus, if he can show that he had acted in the public interest, fairly, justly and for the advancement of the purpose of the enactment under which the authority was used then he will not be penally liable. In the present case, the appellant had acted in dual capacity, the first of being Managing Director, C.D.A., Bahawalpur and the second as Collector under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab)
Act, 1912. In his first capacity the appellant undoubtedly had the authority to pass any order or to take any action within the limits of the powers possessed by him as "Managing Director" of the C.D.A., Bahawalpur. In his second capacity, he had absolutely no powers or authority prior to conferment of powers of Collector under the Act, 1912. The ends of justice, fairplay and the public interest required that the appellant should have remained within the limits of law and ought not to have usurped the authority of Collector under the Act of 1912. As a responsible law-knowing person the appellant should have waited till powers of Collector were actually conferred on him and thereafter he could have legitimately exercised the same in accordance with the law. It is true that some affectees from Laal Sohnara were struggling since long to obtain alternate land but this fact alone did not justify usurpation of powers of Collector by the appellant. The public interest requires that rights and liabilities of the general public be determined by a competent Authority, in accordance with the law so that controversies qua their titles and other claims are finally settled. In the present case, the public interest has been seriously prejudiced because the allottees of land and other persons to whom proprietary rights have been granted or in whose favour sale-deeds have been executed have not acquired valid titles and are going to be involved in a vicious circle of litigation. Apparently all orders passed by the appellant in his capacity as Collector under the Act of 1912 are a nullity in the eye of law. The B.O.R. Has not opted to validate orders passed by the appellant. That is why powers of Collector were conferred on the appellant on 21-3-2000 prospectively. The whole exercise of allotment of land to the affectees of Laal Sohnara, conferment of proprietary rights and execution of sale-deeds will have to be undertaken afresh at public expense. The appellant cannot be deemed to have acted justly and fairly in exercising "his" authority (as M.D., Cholistan Development Authority, Bahawalpur). The C.D.A. Act did not in any manner permit him to cross the limits of law, usurp the powers of the Collector under the Act of 1912 and start passing orders on a large number of cases. In this way, he used his authority to involve the revenue field staff for making reports etc. Although at the relevant time, his authority did not extend over them. It is true that in the process of allotment of land to the affectees, grant of proprietary rights and execution of sale-deeds, the appellant has not shown to have gained any pecuniary benefit for himself. However, he has gained benefit for the affectees of Laal Sohnara and other allottees of land by delivering possession of lands to them and handing over "title deeds" to them. The allottees have stopped paying the lease money to the Government considering themselves to be lawful owners of the lands (although legally they are not). The recovery of price of land from the general public has prejudiced the general public because they have not deprived of their money without acquiring any valid title in the property. All of them stand exposed to hazards of future litigation. For this none but the appellant is to he blamed.
8. The appellant in reply to question No,836 tried to fall back upon Notification dated 5-5-1991 to justify exercise of powers as Collector under the Act.
1912. The plea raised by the appellant is devoid of any force. By virtue of Notification dated 5-5-1991 the powers of Collector were conferred on the appellant under the Cholistan Development Authority Act and not under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, hence he was not competent to deal with the files (of 805 persons) for granting proprietary rights to them or executing conveyance deeds in their favour as a Collector under the Act of 1912.
9. For the foregoing discussion, we hold that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under section 9 (a) (vi) read with section 10 (a) of the NAB Ordinance and we uphold this conviction. As regards the question of sentence, we feel that balance must be struck between undue harshness and undue leniency. On behalf of the defence a chart has been placed on the record to show that counting the remissions granted to the appellant from time to time he has undergone sentence of 5 years, 5 months and 26 days. The chart submitted by the prosecution, which is duly attested by the Deptuy Superintendent of District Jail, Lahore shows that till 20-9-2001 the appellant had undergone sentence of 4 years, 3 months and 17 days. Thereafter, he remained behind the bars for a period of more than three months. As a result of conviction the appellant has already lost his job and otherwise stands disqualified for a period of 10 years to hold any public office as provided under section 15 of the Ordinance. Therefore, we feel that the sentence already undergone by the appellant is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. So far as the sentence of fine is concerned, the prosecution has not been able to show that the appellant had received any pecuniary benefit or advantage on the process of the conferment of proprietary rights or execution of conveyance deeds in favour of the allottees. Further, there is no evidence on the record to show that the appellant is living beyond his known sources of income, hence the sentence of fine is set aside. The appeal is partly allowed with the above modification in the quantum of the appellant's sentence; He will be released forthwith from the jail if not required to be detained in any other criminal case.