1999 PLP 3356 (MLD)
ZAHOOR-UD-DIN ARSHAD — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1999 PLP 3356 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ZAHOOR-UD-DIN ARSHAD — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 3356 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 3356 (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: 1999 PLP 3356 (MLD) (ZAHOOR-UD-DIN ARSHAD — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 234 & 235
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409, 420, 468 & 471-- Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)
Misjoinder of charges-- Conviction by Trial Court
Accused was charged for misappropriation of Government funds
Where charge contained misappropriation of amounts beyond period of 12 months, case was not covered by exceptions contained in Ss.222 & 235, Cr.P.C.
Accused could be charged only for offences not exceeding three committed within space of twelve months from first to last of such offences
Case was remanded by High Court for retrial in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
2. The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the complaint Exh.P.W.2/3 are, that Zahoor-ud-Din (appellant-accused) while posted as Secretary Union Council Gehlan Hithar, District Kasur, in the year 1987-88, misappropriated certain amounts meant for the repairs of schools, Nikah fees, matching grant and taxes and withdrawn through forged cheques. The appellant-accused was charged for the offences under sections 409/420/468 and 471, P.P.C. read with section 5(2), of P.C.A., 1947. He was accordingly convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset submitted that the charge was framed in violation of section 234, Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the trial had vitiated. He referred to the documents Exh.P.W.16/10 of 1985 and the last one Exhs.P.W.3/1 and 2 and submitted that the charge contained the alleged misappropriated amounts beyond the period of 12 months and, therefore, it was a clear case of misjoinder of charges. In support of his contentions he relied upon the following judicial pronouncements: (1) Muhammad Hafeez v. Crown (PLD 1952 Lahore 34), (2) Hidayat Ali v. Crown PLD 1952 Lahore 657) (3) Ghulam Rasool v. The State (PLD 1965 (WP) Karachi 189), (4) Abdul Latif Bhuiyan v. The State (PLD 1963 Dacca 494), (5) Abdul Rashid. v. The State (PLD 1960 (W. P.) Karachi 251) and (6)Ali Nawaz v. The State (PLD 1960 W.P.) Karachi 287
4. There is much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. It is a case of misjoiner of charges and the provisions of section 234, Cr.P.C. have been violated. Obviously, it has prejudiced the case of the appellant. This case is not covered by the exceptions contained in sections 222 and 235, Cr.P.C. The appellant could be charged only for the offences not exceeding three committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the last of such offences.
5. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence of the Appellant are set aside and a retrial according to law is ordered. Q.M.H./M.A.K./Z-62/L Case remanded.