1969 PLP 824 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE-‑Respondent
| Citation | 1969 PLP 824 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE-‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Appeal to Supreme Court |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 824 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Appeal to Supreme Court as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 824 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 PLP 824 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE-‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghulam Mujaddad Mirza, Bar‑at‑Law Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ghulam Mujtaba, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 24th May 1963.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 11th April 1963, in Criminal Appeal No. 715 of 1961).
‑Criminal appeal‑Appreciation of evidence‑Supreme Court does not normally undertake. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑Criminal appeal‑Appreciation of evidence‑Supreme Court does not normally undertake. Ghulam Mujaddad Mirza, Bar‑at‑Law Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ghulam Mujtaba, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing : 24th May 1963. S. A. RAHMAN, A. C. J.‑The petitioner was a Girdawar Qanungo who stands convicted for having received illegal gratification in the sum of Rs. 20 from Jewan P. W.
5. The money was recovered by a raiding Magistrate under whose supervision a trap was laid for catching the petitioner soon after he had received the tainted money. The defence plea in the trial Court was that this money had been passed to him by Jewan as the price of ghee, which the petitioner had given to one, Gaman Lambardar, and which Gaman had sent to the accused through Jewan. This explanation however is belied by the independent testimony of the raiding Magistrate and a Naib Tehsildar who was present at the time of the recovery of the money, to the effect that the petitioner first admitted that he had received the money from Jewan in connection with the mutation which Jewan wanted to be sanctioned in his favour. In the next breath he came out with the ghee story. The Courts below were therefore justified in accepting Jewan's statement that the money had been passed as illegal gratification. The evidence given by the Magistrate and the Naib‑Tehsildar appears to be conclusive on the point. Even otherwise Jewan was no proved to have any motive to implicate the petitioner in the present case. No question other than one of the appreciation of the evidence on which the petitioner's conviction rests, has been agitated in this Court and it is not normally for this Court to undertake reappraisal of the evidence in the exercise of its criminal jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.