Sohail Abid Vs The State and others

Judgment Sheet

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

ABBOTTABAD BENCH

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Writ Petition No. 1535-A/2025

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing...................25.02.2026.................................

Petitioner (Sohail Abid) By Mr. Asif Masood Tanoli, Advocate.

Respondents (The State and others) By Sardar Basharat, Additional Advocate General.

ABDUL FAYAZ, J.- Through the petition in hand filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has sought the following relief:

“It is therefore prayed that on acceptance of the instant writ petition, directions be issued to respondents to issue a Police Clearance Certificate in favour of the petitioner and also direct that the said FIR shall not be entered or reflected in the Police Clearance Certificate issued to the petitioner. Any other relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2.The relevant facts are not in controversy. The petitioner was arrested in case FIR No. 820/24 dated 09.11.2024 under Section 3/4 EHO of Police Station, City,

Abbottabad and when produced before the learned Magistrate in the aforesaid case, he submitted an application stating that he pleads guilty and leaves himself at the mercy of the Court. The learned Magistrate, after satisfying himself regarding the voluntariness of the plea, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, with a default clause of one day simple imprisonment. The fine was paid forthwith and the petitioner was released.

No appeal or revision was preferred against the conviction, and the matter attained finality.

Subsequently, the petitioner applied for issuance of a Police Clearance Certificate for lawful purposes. The certificate reflected the above conviction, thereby affecting his prospects and reputation. It is in this backdrop that the present petition has been filed, invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the offence was minor in nature;

the sentence imposed was merely nominal; the conviction resulted solely from a voluntary

plea without any contested adjudication; and the continued reflection of such conviction in official clearance documents amounts to a disproportionate and lifelong stigma. It is argued that such treatment frustrates the very object of summary disposal of petty offences and impinges upon the petitioner’s fundamental right to dignity and fair treatment.

4.Arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AAG heard at length and record perused.

5.It is settled law that a conviction recorded upon a voluntary plea of guilt is legally sustainable, provided the Court has ensured that the plea is conscious, voluntary and unequivocal. In the present case, no illegality in the trial proceedings has been pointed out. The conviction, therefore, remains intact and this Court does not sit in appeal over the same.

6.The core issue requiring

determination is of a different complexion:

whether every conviction, irrespective of its nature, gravity and circumstances, must

necessarily operate as a permanent blot upon the character record of an individual, particularly where the offence is trivial and the sentence imposed is merely a token fine.

7.Criminal jurisprudence has

progressively evolved from a purely retributive model to one which incorporates reformative and restorative elements. The acceptance of plea of guilt in minor offences is a recognized procedural device aimed at expeditious conclusion of proceedings, reduction of docket burden, and proportional response to minor infractions. Such mechanism directly advances the mandate contained in clause (d) of Article 37 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which obligates the State to ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice.

8.The ever-increasing pendency of criminal cases has stretched the capacity of courts to its limits. In such circumstances, judicial systems must adopt pragmatic and innovative approaches to ensure that precious judicial time is reserved for serious and contested matters. The summary disposal of

petty offences upon voluntary plea is one such pragmatic innovation serving systemic efficiency. In several common law jurisdictions, notably the United States, the plea of nolo contendere, literally meaning “I do not wish to contend” permits an accused person to accept the imposition of sentence without formally admitting guilt. Though not technically a guilty plea, it authorizes the Court to proceed to sentencing as if guilt had been admitted. Historically derived from English common law and influenced by ecclesiastical legal traditions, the plea has been understood as a procedural accommodation balancing judicial economy with mitigation of collateral consequences. Under such plea, the accused refrains from contesting the charge without expressly admitting guilt. The functional essence of the plea lies in its recognition that not every procedural acceptance of penalty must carry identical collateral stigma. Reference may be made to the case of “Ali Muhammad Vs. The State” reported as PLD 2009 Lahore 312.

9.While our criminal procedure does not formally codify the terminology of nolo contendere, the practical effect of a voluntary plea of guilt in petty offences bears resemblance to that concept. The accused forgoes contest, the Court imposes proportionate punishment, and the matter is concluded swiftly. However, if such minor conviction is thereafter treated as an enduring disqualification or moral indictment in character verification processes, the reformative and pragmatic objectives of summary procedure stand undermined.

10.It must be emphasized that the purpose of a Police Clearance Certificate is to indicate whether a person poses a present and substantive threat to public order or has been involved in serious criminality. A mechanical reflection of every minor conviction, without contextual distinction between trivial infractions and grave offences involving moral turpitude, defeats the principle of proportionality. Law does not countenance perpetual civil consequences flowing from

trivial penal outcomes. The doctrine of proportionality, now firmly embedded in our constitutional jurisprudence, requires that administrative actions must bear a rational nexus to their objective and must not impose excessive burdens. To treat a person convicted of a minor offence and sentenced to a nominal fine on par with habitual or serious offenders for purposes of character certification would be manifestly disproportionate.

11.At the same time, it is clarified that this Court does not expunge or obliterate the judicial record of conviction. The conviction remains part of the court record and may be accessed in accordance with law where legitimately required. The relief granted herein is confined to the manner in which such minor conviction is reflected in routine Police Clearance Certificates, so as to prevent disproportionate and lifelong stigma.

12.For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed. It is declared that, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the minor conviction of the petitioner in FIR

No. 820/24 dated 09.11.2024, resulting solely in imposition and payment of fine of Rs.1,000/-, shall not be reflected as an adverse character entry in the Police Clearance Certificate in a manner that stigmatizes the petitioner’s character for all times to come.

The respondents are directed to issue the Police Clearance Certificate accordingly, unless the petitioner is involved in any other criminal case.

Announced:

JUDGE

JUDGE

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abdul Fayaz Hon’ble Mr. Justice Syed Mudasser Ameer Tufail/*