Case Details

Citation(s)
1980 SLG 3070 = 1980 SLD 3070 = 1980 SCMR 357

Criminal Review Petition No. 11. of 1974, decided on 5th December,1979.           (On review from the judgment and order of this Court dated 4th July, 1974 in Petition No. 211 of 1974).
Presented By:  Anwarul Haq, C, J, and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, J
Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for the State.

SABIR-Petitioner

VERSUS

THE STATE-Respondent

Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973

Section: 188

Law: Supreme Court Rules, 1956

Section: O. XXVI.

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)  Art. 188-Review -Review sought on ground of there being no evidence to show conscious acceptance of illegal gratification by petitioner or to show petitioner being capable of helping complainant in matter-Grounds, however, already raised and considered at time of hearing of main case and repelled for detailed reasons recorded in judgment-No justification, held, made out for review of order, in circumstances-Supreme Court Rules, 1956. O. XXVI.-[Review]. Date of hearing : 5th December, 1979.                                                                                                                           ORDER ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.-This petition seeks review of the judgment of this Court dated the 4th of July, 1974, by which Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 211 of 1974, directed against the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner by the learned Special Judge Anti-Cor ruption, Multan, under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code, read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was dismissed. The allegations against the petitioner were that while working as a Junior Clerk in the office of the District Inspector of Schools, Sahiwal, he accepted a sum of Rs. 50.as illegal gratification from a school teacher by the name of Ahmad Din, who wanted his transfer from Pakpattan to Okara, and had contacted the petitioner for assistance in this behalf. On information given by Ahmad Din a trap was laid, and the tainted -money was recovered from the possession of the petitioner in the presence of a Magistrate. The learned trial Judge believed this evidence and rejected the defence version that the money had been paid to the petitioner as a refund of the amount previously advanced by him to the complainant for the' purchase of Ghee. These findings were upheld in appeal by a…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register