Conviction under section 22 of Emigration Ordinance 1979

 PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 125

[Lahore High Court, Lahore]

Present: Miss Aalia Neelum, J.

MUHAMMAD NAEEM-UL-HAQ--Appellant

versus

STATE, etc.--Respondents

Crl. A. No. 933 of 2014, heard on 11.5.2022.

Emigration Ordinance, 1979 (XVIII of 1979)--

----S--22--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Prayed for reduction in sentence--High Court feels that appellant deserves lenient treatment as appellant was first offender--Purpose of criminal law justice system is not only to punish an individual but also to reform him--In determining question of proper punishment in a criminal case, Court has to give weight to degree of culpability of accused, its effect on others and desirability of showing any leniency in matter of punishment in case--An act of balancing is what is needed in such case, weighing one against other: a balance between interest of individual and concern of society--Imposing a hard punishment on accused serves a limited purpose but at same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined--Within parameters of law, an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to individual to reform himself and lead life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard--Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in facts and circumstances placed on record would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at such, within permissible limits of
law--Ends of justice will be served by maintaining conviction of appellant inflicted by learned trial Court on him but reducing sentence to period already undergone by appellant--However, amount of fine and sentence in default thereof will remain intact--Appellant is directed to deposit amount of fine awarded by trial Court within 01-month--After depositing fine, bail bonds submitted by appellant stand discharged.  [Para 7 & 8] A & B

Syed Samar Raza, Advocate for Appellant.

Mr. Shahzad, SI, FIA with record for State.

Mian Tariq Hussain. Advocate for Complainant.

Date of hearing 11.5.2022.

Judgment

The appellant, Naeem-ul-Haq son of Allah Bukhsh, Caste Gondal, resident of K.M. international Flat No. 1, Madina Pak Shams Abad, Murree Road, Rawalpindi presently residing at Shahpur, District Sargodha, the appellant was involved in case FIR No. 236 of 2012 dated 06.11.2012, registered under Section 17/22 of Emigration Ordinance 1979, at Police Station FIA, District Faisalabad and tried by the learned Judge Special Court (Central), Faisalabad. The learned trial Court seized with the matter in terms of judgment dated 06.05.2014, convicted the appellant under Section 17 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 04-years, with the direction to pay Rs. 10,000/- as fine and in case of default in payment thereof, to further undergo 03-months S.I. The appellant was also convicted under Section 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 04-years. with the direction to pay Rs. 10,000/- as fine and in case of default in payment thereof, to further undergo 03-monthsf S.I. The appellant was also sentenced to pay Rs. 7,000,00/- under Section 9 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 to the complainant. Both the sentences awarded to the appellant would run concurrently. The benefit of Section 382-B, PPC was also extended in favour of the appellant.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Court, the appellant has assailed his conviction through filing instant appeal bearing Crl. Appeal No. 933 of 2014.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, as per contents of F.I.R. is that the appellant being unauthorized overseas employment promoter, posed himself to be so and received an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- from the complainant in order to send his son to America for employment. Hence, this case.

4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant has opted not to object conviction of the appellant, however, prayed for reduction in his sentence. Further stated that the appellant is the first offender and has already undergone more than one year, so, a lenient view may be taken.

4A. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has shown no objection upon reduction of sentence of the appellant.

5. Heard. Record perused.

6. As the learned counsel for the appellant has not opted to assail conviction rendered by the learned trial Court against the appellant, therefore, this Court does not feel it necessary to discuss in detail the prosecution evidence available on the record. However, this Court finds that the prosecution had undoubtedly proved the factum of occurrence. This Court does not find material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. It is also proved from the evidence on record that the prosecution witnesses i.e. Zahid Latif
(PW-1) the complainant and Tassadaq Ali (PW-2) have remained consistent, despite lengthy cross-examination. I am persuaded to hold that the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court.

7. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that the appellant deserves lenient treatment as the appellant was first offender. Purpose of criminal law justice system is not only to punish an individual but also to reform him. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the Court has to give weight to the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is what is needed in such case, weighing the one against the other: a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law, an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at such, within the permissible limits of law.

8. Consequently, the ends of justice will be served by maintaining the conviction of the appellant inflicted by the learned trial Court on him but reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant. However, the amount of fine and sentence in default thereof will remain intact. The appellant is directed to deposit amount of fine awarded by the trial Court within 01-month. After depositing the fine, bail bonds submitted by the appellant stand discharged.

9. With the above observations, Criminal Appeal No. 933 of 2014 stands disposed of.

(A.A.K.)