SCMR 1994

1994 PLP 1565 (SCMR)

IMAM BAKHSH BAQAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 335‑L of 1993; decided on 8th January, 1994.
Honorable Judges
Saad Saood Jan and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1994 PLP 1565 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Saad Saood Jan and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ
Parties IMAM BAKHSH BAQAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Primary Law Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)‑‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1565 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1565 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1565 (SCMR) (IMAM BAKHSH BAQAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)‑‑‑

Representation

  • Mobashir Latif Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
  • Date of hearing: 8th January, 1994.

Headnotes / Summary

(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 6‑2‑1993 in CA Appeal No. 164 of 1981). ‑‑‑‑S. 5(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Accused being a school teacher while serving as an invigilator in Government High School had allegedly extorted Rs.200 from a candidate appearing in Matriculation Examination with the promise of helping him in copying the answers and was caught by a raiding party headed by a Magistrate with the tainted money‑‑‑Trial Court as well as the High Court had accepted the testimony of the Magistrate and the candidate and no reason for taking a different view in the matter was available‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Nemo for the State.

Judgment & Decree

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner was a teacher in a middle school. On 2‑7‑1977 he was serving as an invigilator in the Government High School, Renala Khurd, where Matriculation Examination was being held. He allegedly extorted Rs.200 from a candidate with the promise of helping him in copying the answers. He was caught by a raiding party headed by a Magistrate with the tainted money. The trial Court as well as the High Court accepted the testimony of the Magistrate and the candidate and we see no reason for taking a different view in the matter. He has already been treated leniently in the matter of sentence. The petition is dismissed. N.H.Q/I‑201/S Leave refused.