2006 PLP 1703 (MLD)
NASIR ALTAF — Appellant Versus KHALID BASHIR BUTT and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1703 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NASIR ALTAF — Appellant Versus KHALID BASHIR BUTT and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1703 (MLD)?
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 2006 PLP 1703 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1703 (MLD) (NASIR ALTAF — Appellant Versus KHALID BASHIR BUTT and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Hanif Khatana Addl. A.G. (in Criminal Appeal No.362 of 2004) for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 5(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417(2-A)
Neither any member of the raiding party, according to the raid report, had heard the conversation between the complainant and the accused, nor had seen the accused putting the tainted money of Rs.10,000 in the pocket of his stenographer
Impugned order passed by Trial Court acquitting the accused did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity
Appeal against acquittal of accused was dismissed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.
This order will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.1958 of 2003 titled as Nisar Altaf v. Khalid Bashir Butt etc. and Criminal Appeal No.362- of 2004 titled as State v. Khalid Bashir Butt XEN. Record has been received. I have gone through the same especially the raid report. Tariq Mehmood Stenographer during the raid has made a statement that he was working in the room of Khalid Bashir Butt XEN on Computer and Khalid Bashir Butt XEN put the money in his pocket, immediately raiding party entered and recovered the said amount from his pocket. He has stated that he had not done anything in this case, then, there is a statement of Nisar Altaf, who had stated that he had given the tainted money to Khalid Bashir Butt XEN and he put the same in the pocket of Tariq Mehmood Stenographer and he also gave Rs.5,000 to Abdul Majeed. Tariq Mehmood Stenographer was made an accused but he was acquitted under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. while Khalid Bashir Butt XEN had also been acquitted by the learned Special Judge Anti Corruption, Sargodha under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1958 of 2003 and learned Public Prosecutor in Criminal Appeal No.362 of 2004 submit that there was sufficient evidence on record which can connect Khalid Bashir Butt XEN with the commission of offence. They further submit that no evidence was recorded and the learned trial Court had acquitted respondent. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record especially raid report. Tariq Mehmood Stenographer should have been cited as prosecution witness while he was made an accused in this case and the learned trial Court acquitted him under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. although tainted money was recovered from his pocket, neither any member of the raiding party according to the raid report heard the conversation between Nisar Altaf complainant and Khalid Bashir Butt XEN or seen with their own eyes that Khalid Bashir Butt XEN put the tainted money amounting to Rs. 10,000 in the pocket of Tariq Mehmood Stenographer, so I am of the considered opinion that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the learned trial Court while acquitting Khalid Bashir Butt XEN/respondent in this case. In this view of the matter, there is no force in both these appeals and the same are dismissed. N.H.Q./N-73/L Appeals dismissed.