1985 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD YAQUB‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YAQUB‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947)‑‑ 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) (MUHAMMAD YAQUB‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Bashir Ahmad for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 11th February, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 5(2)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161‑‑Accused (Constable) allegedly snatching currency note of ten rupees from Truck Driver‑ Truck Driver not produced by prosecution‑‑Evidence produced by prosecution showing that currency note was taken by accused without consent of Truck Driver‑‑‑ Allegation, if accepted at its face value, held, no case of acceptance of illegal gratification within meaning of S. 161, P.P.C. made out‑‑Conviction set aside in circumstances. Shams Mehmood for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 11th February, 1985. This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Sargodha, whereby he on 18‑12‑1984 convicted Muhammad Yaqub appellant under section 161, P.P.C. and sentenced him to a fine of Rs.1,000, in default thereof R.I. for two months.
2. The appellant was a constable. The charge against him was that he snatched Rs.10 from Abdul Wahhab, Truck Driver. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case prosecution examined 4 witnesses. They supported the prosecution case.
3. When examined under section 342, Cr. P. C., the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. In defence he produced no witnesses.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the charge against the appellant as framed by the trial Court, accepted at its face value, no offence punishable under section 161, P.P.C. was committed by the appellant. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial. Court.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the charge against the appellant was that he snatched Rs.10 from Abdul Wahhab, Truck Driver; that Abdul Wahhab has not been produced and that the evidence produced by the prosecution also shows that the currency note of Rs.10 was taken by the appellant without consent of Abdul Wahhab, Truck Driver.
6. For what has been found above, I am of the view that the allegation accepted at its face value, no case of acceptance of illegal gratification within the meanings of section 161, P.P.C. is made out and as such, the appellant has wrongly been convicted by the learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption under section 161, P.P.C. That being the position, there is no option but to set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. Order accordingly. H. A. Appeal accepted.