1994 PLP 1679 (SCMR)
NISAR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1679 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Saleem Akhtar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ |
| Parties | NISAR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1679 (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 1679 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Saleem Akhtar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1679 (SCMR) (NISAR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdus Samad Hashmi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record. for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 11th January, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 7‑7‑1993 passed in CrA. No. 244 of 1991). ‑‑‑‑S. 5(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Contention that the file lying in the almirah from which the tainted currency note of Rs.50 ,was recovered by the Magistrate was accessible to many other persons and possibility that the complainant who had earlier an altercation with the accused might have clandestinely placed said currency note in the file at that time, required consideration‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SALEEM AKHTAR, J: ‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Judge in Chambers upholding his conviction under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentence of six months' R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000 or in default one month's R.I.
2. The petitioner was charged of accepting bribe of Rs.50 and the tainted money was recovered by the Magistrate from the file which was lying in the almirah. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the file was accessible to many other persons and according to defence in view of the altercation which had taken place between the petitioner and the complainant earlier, he had clandestinely placed this note in the file at that time. The contention requires consideration. Leave is granted. The petitioner is on bail which shall continue. N.H.Q./N‑376/S Leave granted.