| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1963 SLG 480 1963 SLD 480 1963 PLD 34 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 1961, decided on 26th November 1962.
A. R. CORNELIUS, C.J., FAZLE-AKBAR AND B. Z. KAIKAUS, JJ
Muhammad Hayat Junejo, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Yousuf Rafi Attorney for Appellant. Zahoorul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz All Attorney for
Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 1961, decided on 26th November 1962.
A. R. CORNELIUS, C.J., FAZLE-AKBAR AND B. Z. KAIKAUS, JJ
Muhammad Hayat Junejo, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Yousuf Rafi Attorney for Appellant. Zahoorul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz All Attorney for
Respondent.
ROSHAN ALI KHAN--Appellant
VS
THE STATE--Respondent
Law:
Section:
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 333 & 325-Conditions necessary for aggravation of offence ordinarily punishable under S. 325 to that falling under S. 333-Attack on public servant on his demanding larger sum from accused than what was legally due from them-Possibility that either bribe was being extorted from accused or else demand for larger sum was being pressed by public servant under mistake-Benefit of doubt to be given to accused and interpretation of action of public servant favourable to accused should be accepted-Violent resistance by accused to act of extortion by public servant-Public servant cannot be said to be acting in "lawful discharge of his duty" and attack on him, therefore, punishable under S. 325 and not S. 333. JUDGMENT CORNELIUS, C. J.-The appellant, Roshan Ali Khan was given special leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan (at Karachi) maintaining his conviction under section 333, P. P. C. as well as the sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment which had been imposed by the trial Court, namely, an Additional Sessions Judge of Hyderabad. The ground on which leave was granted was that there was nothing to distinguish his case from that of one Hassan Ali whose appeal against his conviction in the same case and for the same offence had been allowed by the High Court and he had been acquitted. On examining the record with the assistance of counsel, we are satisfied that on the facts, there were sufficient points of difference between the case of Hassan Ali and that of Roshan Ali Khan to justify the differential treatment. The trial had proceeded against three persons, namely, Roshan Ali Khan, his nephew Hassan Ali and one Ibrahim, a servant of theirs. Roshan Ali Khan and Hassan Ali had a shop in the bazar of Tando Allah Yar and on the day in question, with their servant Ibrahim, they were present at the office of Mr. Qamar Din, P. W. 1, Inspector of Weights and Measures where they had taken their weights and scales for verification. Mr. Qamar Din was present in his office, and according to the complaint which he subsequently made, he heard a noise "in the shop of repairers" by…
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