Case Details

Citation(s)
1985 SLG 532 1985 SLD 532 1985 SCMR 561
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition No.365 of 1984, decision dated: 10-12-1984
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, NASIM HASAN SHAH AND M.S.H. QURAISHI, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

ARSHAD MAHMOOD

VS

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--Art. 185(3)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.161--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.423--Conviction not challenged in appeal by petitioner but request for leniency granted and sentence reduced--Order impugned on ground that it was not a legal disposition of case--High Court having found 'ample evidence' to connect petitioner with crime, contention that non-appraisal of evidence required under S.423, Cr.P.C. had resulted in miscarriage of justice, not sustained--Petition having no fore leave to appeal refused. Abdul Siddique v. The State 1971 S C M R 628 ref. ORDER NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The petitioner, who was serving as Line Superintendent in Sub-Division, Salamatpura, WAPDA, Lahore on 18-10-1979 , was tried under section 161, P . P . C . read with section 5 (2 ) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, on the allegation that he had demanded Rs.600 and accepted Rs.300 as' illegal gratification to favour the complainant Abdul Qadeer alias Muhammad Akram, P.W.1, in connection with the installation of a meter at his house. The learned trial Judge, vide his judgment dated 10-11-1981, convicted the petitioner under section 161, P.P.C. and sentenced him to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo two months' R.I. The petitioner was, however, acquitted of the charge under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The petitioner filed an appeal against the judgment of the trial Court dated 10-11-1981, which was heard by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. At the time of the hearing of the appeal the learned counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the conviction but requested for leniency in the sentence. The learned Judge considering that the petitioner had already suffered the agony of a protracted trial and that the illegal gratification accepted by him was only Rs.300 was pleased to view this submission with sympathy and proceeded to alter the sentence of one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.4,000, in default of payment of this fine…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492