Pak spy’s term raised to 5 yrs

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, February 19

Just over four years after a Pakistani spy-cum-ISI agent was apprehended by the police, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has enhanced his jail sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment from two-and-a-half initially awarded by the trial court at Ludhiana.

The orders by Justice Rekha Mittal came on an appeal filed by the State of Punjab against Fahim Sadiq. The state had moved the High Court against the judgment dated November 7, 2012, passed by Ludhiana Additional Sessions Judge for enhancing the sentence awarded to the convict for offence punishable under the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, the Indian Passport Act, and the Foreigners Act.

The prosecution had claimed that a police party in December 2010 received secret information that a Pakistani informer and spy of Pakistan’s secret agency ISI, Fahim Sadiq, was going on a three-wheeler from Dhandri Kalan to Ludhiana city.

The party was told the spy was carrying secret documents on Indian military in an envelope. The papers could be helpful to the enemies and cause damage to integrity and security of India. The documents could also affect cordial relations of India with other foreign countries.

The three-wheeler carrying the accused was intercepted before he was apprehended. His personal search revealed a mobile phone, four SIM cards, book on Indian military and handwritten notes.

In view of the confessional statement recorded by the accused, as well as evidence presented by the prosecution, the trial court convicted him. But feeling aggrieved by the inadequacy of sentence awarded by the trial court, the state filed an appeal for its enhancement.

Taking up the matter, Justice Mittal asserted: “Keeping in view the allegations against the respondent on the basis of materials recovered from his custody, the offence committed by him is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 14 years.

“Perusal of the judgment passed by the trial court makes it evident that the trial court has not noticed any mitigating circumstances in favour of the respondent. The usual plea raised by the respondent that he is a poor person and the only bread winner of his family consisting of small children, in my considered opinion, is not sufficient to take a lenient view in the matter.