1992 P, Cr (PLP)
BASHIR AHMAD‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 P, Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMAD‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 P, Cr (PLP)?
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 1992 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: 1992 P, Cr (PLP) (BASHIR AHMAD‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Riyasat Ali for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 9th July, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 5‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑ Accused admitted recovery of tainted currency notes from him, but had pleaded that complainant had returned his disputed amount towards loan obtained by him from accused‑‑‑Since Magistrate and Circle Officer did not hear talk preceding the passing of tainted currency notes, statement of complainant alone remained in field upon which no implicit reliance could be placed‑‑‑Possibility of defence version that complainant had returned him disputed amount towards loan obtained by him from accused, could not be excluded‑‑‑Prosecution having failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused, giving benefit of doubt to accused, he was acquitted of the charge. Rana Abdul Hamid Talib for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Rana Abdul Hamid Talib for the State. Date of hearing: 9th July, 1984. This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Senior special Judge,/ Anti‑Corruption whereby he on 11‑6‑1978 convicted Bashir Ahmad appellant under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5 of the . Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to nine months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 in default thereof to three months' R.I.
2. The appellant was working as Duty Clerk Omni Bus Service, Lahore. The charge against him was that he demanded and then accepted Rs.30 as illegal gratification from Habib Ahmad Conductor P.W.4. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined four witnesses. Habib Ahmad P.W4 appeared to prove the demand and acceptance of g.c. currency notes by the appellant from him as illegal gratification. Safdar Ali M.I.C. P.W.2 and Muhammad Amin S.I. Circle Officer P.W.3 were produced to prove the recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He raised plea of the return of loan to him. In defence he produced two witnesses.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove that the tainted currency notes were paid as bribe money. 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. I find that the recovery of the tainted currency notes having been admitted by the appellant, the main question for consideration is as to whether the same were received as bribe money or not. Since the Magistrate and the Circle Officer did not hear the talk preceding the passing on of the tainted currency notes, therefore, the statement of Habib Ahmad complainant alone remains in the field upon which in the circumstances, of the case, I am not prepared to place implicit reliance. The possibility of the defence version that the complainant had returned him Rs.30 towards loan obtained by him cannot be excluded. For all these reasons I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. Giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge. H.B.T./B‑7/L Accused acquitted.