Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLG 378 1992 SLD 378 1992 PLD 254
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition No.92 of 1991, decision dated: 26-01-1992. (On appeal from the judgment dated 13-11-1991 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in Crl. Appeal No.125 of 1988)
MITHANINIAD AFTAL ZILLAH, C.J. AND ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHVY, J
Sardar Muhammad Ishaq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record Nemo.

MUHAMMAD ASLAM-

VS

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)------S. 5(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860;, S.161---Trap case---Not necessary in a raid (trap) case to look for direct evidence of criminal conservation between the accused and decoy witness; provided that the Magistrate who supervised the raid was satisfied that he had not been cheated, neither by the complainant/decoy witness nor by the accused---Where the Magistrate who conducted the raid was in no doubt about the correctness of the prosecution case nor was he in any doubt about the reality which had taken place and which was witnessed by him, Supreme Court declined interference in the conviction and sentence of the accused. Muhammad Fazlul Karim v. The State and another PLD 1964 SC 792 distinguished (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-- ----Art.185---Appeal against acquittal before Supreme Court---Standard and mode of appreciation of evidence in cases where acquittal was sought to be set aside was different than the appreciation in those cases where conviction was sought to be set aside. ORDER MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.--- The petitioner has sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence for offence of bribery. It was a Magisterial raid case. The petitioner was caught almost red handed. The tainted money was recovered from him. The frivolous plea that the petitioner had received Rs90 as return of loan has not been accepted by either of the two Courts below. There is practically no point advanced by the learned counsel. However, he cited Muhammad Fazlul Karim v. The State and another PLD 1964 SC 792 and contended that the prosecution could not succeed on account of discrepancies in the plea or stand taken or explanations offered by the accused regarding the recovery of the tainted money from him. He also contended that if the complainant would have been searched there and then the ten rupee note which was alleged to have been returned by the petitioner to him would have been recovered. It was not beyond a serious possibility that when confronted with such a situation the petitioner, in…
🔒
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