| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 1124 2004 SLD 1124 2004 SCMR 1178 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeals Nos. 109 and 111 of 1997, decision dated: 20-04-2004.(On appeal from the judgment, dated 30 4 1997 of Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Ehtesab Reference No.3 of 1997)
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C.J., JAVED IQBAL AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ
Aitzad Ahsan, Senior Advocate Supreme and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate on-Record for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 1997). Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Raja Muhammad Shafqat Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghaf
Criminal Appeals Nos. 109 and 111 of 1997, decision dated: 20-04-2004.(On appeal from the judgment, dated 30 4 1997 of Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Ehtesab Reference No.3 of 1997)
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C.J., JAVED IQBAL AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ
Aitzad Ahsan, Senior Advocate Supreme and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate on-Record for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 1997). Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Raja Muhammad Shafqat Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghaf
SHAFI MUHAMMAD SEHWANI and another
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
Ehtesab Ordinance (XX of 1997)--- Ss. 3 & 4 Appraisal of evidence Element of mens tea was missing in the case Mere irregularity in regularization of the plot in question and the allegation of misleading the then Chairman, C.D.A. would not constitute the offence falling within the ambit of S.3 of the Ehtesab Ordinance, 1997 Matter had been closed during the year 1993 leaving no justification for initiating criminal proceedings in the year 1996 No case of any sort was, thus, made out warranting conviction and sentence of accused Even otherwise, after the promulgation of the Ehtesab Act, 1997 only holders of public offices, since 6th day of November, 1990, could be prosecuted and proceedings which related to offences committed prior to the said date could not be continued under the Ehtesab Act (IX of 1997), after the repeal of Ehtesab Ordinance (XX of 1997) ¬Prosecution case, therefore, also failed on this legal aspect Accused were acquitted in circumstances. Federation of Pakistan and others v. M. Nawaz Khokhar and others PLD 2000 SC 26 ref. JUDGMENT ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J. By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of Criminal Appeals Nos. 109 and 111 of 1997 as they arise out of judgment, dated 30 4 1997 passed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Ehtesab Reference No.3 of 1997 whereby both appellants were found guilty of offence under section 4 of the Ehtesab Ordinance XX of 1997 (hereinafter referred to as `The Ordinance') and were convicted and sentenced to five years' R.I. each with fine of Rs.10,00,000 (Rupees ten lacs) each and in default whereof to undergo further R.I. for one year. They were, however, extended benefit of section 382 B, Cr.P.C. 2. Facts relevant for the disposal of the appeals are that the Capital Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as CDA) allotted a plot measuring 2200 sq. yards situated in Markaz F 6, Islamabad to Messrs Abdul Majeed Farooqi and Ch. Muhammad Najeeb for construction of swimming pool at the rate of Rs.50 per sq. yard on 8 8 1974 on lease for 33 years extendable for two more similar terms. Since the allottees failed to complete the project as per conditions of the allotment,…
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