A trivial offence should not have severe consequences: FCC

Business Recorder · 16/10/2026، 11:52:07 PM

ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) held that a trivial or less serious offence should not have such severe consequences as to automatically disqualify a person for induction in government service. “A crime is obviously a crime, but a criminal has to be considered with reference to his bent of mind towards crime and his tendency to commit further crimes in the future. An offence under Sections 285 and 286 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) involves negligent conduct with reference to fire, combustible materials or explosive substances,” noted a two-member bench. The bench, headed by Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan heard an appeal of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa police officer against the Peshawar High Court order dated on 15.03.2023, which had directed to KP police to consider the respondent (Hanifullah), who had applied for the post of constable. The respondent was convicted in case-FIR No.269 dated 22.04.2018, registered under section 285/286 PPC at police station Talash District Dir Lower and was sentenced to a fine of Rs500/- on the basis of a confessional statement, only which is a minor penalty and does not fall in the category of heinous crime or an offence of moral turpitude. The Court said even otherwise the confession of a guilt is mainly made with an arrangement and understanding to avoid the wastage of the courts time with some element of repentance and remorse and with a consequence limited to that extent only. Without educating such convict about the result of making a confessional statement he cannot be bound for a life-long prohibition, it added. The judgment emphasised that the punishment must commensurate with the crime and it cannot damage the entire life of such criminal. It noted that the respondent as per the available record is not a habitual criminal. After admission/ confession the accused becomes friend of the court and therefore, is entitled to reasonable leniency. The Court maintained that the respondent has a constitutional protecti