1985 P Cr (PLP)
MUSHTAQ AHMAD Appellant Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1985 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUSHTAQ AHMAD Appellant Versus THE STATE Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 P Cr (PLP) (MUSHTAQ AHMAD Appellant Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ashiq Hussain Malik for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 30th January, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)‑‑Illegal gratification‑‑Demand and acceptance of currency notes proved by evidence of complainant‑‑Recovery of tainted currency notes proved by evidence of Magistrate and Inspector‑‑No inherent infirmity shown in statement of Magistrate and Inspector, who are independent witnesses‑‑No material contradiction in statements of prosecution witnesses found‑‑Order of conviction upheld. (b) Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.5(2)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161‑‑Illegal gratification‑ Statutory presumption‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342‑ Recovery of tainted currency notes gives rise to statutory presumption that same were received as illegal gratification by accused‑‑Immediate statement of accused after raid that he did not wish to get his statement recorded and he be pardoned‑‑Accused did not care to rebut prosecution evidence and presumption from recovery of tainted currency notes‑ Conviction maintained in circumstances. Malik Rehmat Khan Awan for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Ashiq Hussain Malik for Appellant. Malik Rehmat Khan Awan for the State. Date of hearing: 30th January, 1985. This criminal appeal arises from .the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Sargodha, Faisalabad Division with Headquarters at Sargodha whereby he on 7‑11‑1984, convicted Mushtaq Ahmad appellant under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to 10 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.5,000 in default thereof further S.I. for five months.
2. The appellant was a Patwari. The' charge against him was that he demanded and accepted Rs.5G0 as illegal gratification from Muhabat complainant. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, prosecution examined five witnesses. Muhabat P.W.1 and Muhammad lqbal P.W.2 appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of illegal gratification from the complainant by the appellant. Hamid Nawaz Magistrate and Nasar Baidar Inspector A.C.E. were produced to prove the tainted currency notes from the appellant. They supported the prosecution case. Raja Inayat Inspector Police investigated the case and submitted the challan.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all incriminating circumstance. He raised the plea of false implication. In defence he did not produce any witness but tendered documents Exh.D.l and D.2, copies of Khasra Girdawari.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; that the prosecution witnesses are not reliable; that the motive for the acceptance of illegal gratification as stated by the prosecution appears to be false and that the Magistrate neither heard the talk nor did he see the transaction. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. I find that the Magistrate had recovered the tainted currency notes from the appellant; that the Inspector Anti‑Corruption supports him; that Muhabat complainant has stated that the appellant had not only demanded but also accepted tainted currency notes as illegal gratification; that the recovery of tained currency notes stands proved from the statements of the Magistrate and the Inspector beyond reasonable doubt; that they are quite independent witnesses; I do rot see any inherent infirmity in their statements; that the learned counsel has failed to point out any material contradiction in the statement of prosecution witnesses; that the recovery of the tainted currency notes gives rise to the statutory presumption that the same were received by the appellant as illegal gratification and that immediately after the raid the appellant stated before the Magistrate; that the appellant did not care to rebut prosecution evidence and the presumption arisen from the recovery of the tainted currency notes from him. For all these reasons I am convinced that the appellant has rightly been convicted by the trial Court. The sentence awarded to him is not excessive.
7. For what has been stated above, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall surrender himself before the trial Court immediately. The trial Court shall also issue warrants for his arrest and detention. M.A.K. Appeal dismissed.