P L D 1964 Supreme Court 792 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD FAZLUL KARIM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1964 Supreme Court 792 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Criminal trial-Onus on prosecution to prove their case Accused cannot be convicted merely for having told an untruth in relation to facts alleged against him-(Accused giving two contradictory explanations in regard to money allegedly received as bribe)-Leave to Appeal to Supreme Pakistan (1962), Art. 58. |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD FAZLUL KARIM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1964 Supreme Court 792 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1964 Supreme Court 792 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Criminal trial-Onus on prosecution to prove their case Accused cannot be convicted merely for having told an untruth in relation to facts alleged against him-(Accused giving two contradictory explanations in regard to money allegedly received as bribe)-Leave to Appeal to Supreme Pakistan (1962), Art. 58. bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1964 Supreme Court 792 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD FAZLUL KARIM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nasiruddin Chowdhury Advocate Supreme Court instructed by B. C. Panday Attorney for Petitioner.
- Maksumul Hakim Advocate-General East Pakistan (K. M. Subhan Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by S. M. Abbas Attorney for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 29th July 1964.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 27th January 1964, in Revision No. 44 of 1964). Criminal trial-Onus on prosecution to prove their case Accused cannot be convicted merely for having told an untruth in relation to facts alleged against him-(Accused giving two contradictory explanations in regard to money allegedly received as bribe)-[Leave to Appeal to Supreme Pakistan (1962), Art. 58]. In a criminal case, the onus is on the prosecution to prove their case, and the accused cannot be convicted merely on proof of his having told an untruth 3ellation to one or more of the facts alleged against him. Apart from the difficulty of accepting the unsupported word of the complainant on the principal point of fact in the case, (i.e., pretext on which bribe money was passed) there were other factors discussed at length in the Special Judge's judgment which had led him to doubt the evidence in relation to other facts making up the case : Held, that the acquittal was justified. [Petition for special leave to appeal `dismissed']: Respondent No. 2 : not represented.
Judgment & Decree
CORNELIUS, C. J. Leave to appeal is sought against an order of a Division Bench of the High Court summarily rejecting a petition for revision of the acquittal by a Special Judge of the respondent Khorshed Alam, on a charge of bribery under section 161, P. P. C. read with section 5 of-the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. .In a very lengthy judgment by the Special Judge, the principal grounds for the acquittal appearing are (1) that the official act in respect of which the bribe was paid had been performed a considerable period before the passing of the marked note, and (2) that as to the pretext upon which the money was passed, the sole evidence was that of the com plainant (here the petitioner) who was himself a man of no character, with a long criminal record. The marked note was found in the possession of the accused when the trap party came up, and Mr. Nasiruddin Chowdhury for the petitioner makes the point that the first explanation offered by the accused for such possession was that he had brought the money with him from the Thana, Chatak by name, where he was posted. (The trap was laid in Sylhet town in a restaurant, where the Thanedar and the complainant had tea and sweets together). A good deal later, the accused came out with the explanation that he had changed the hundred-rupee note for notes of smaller denomination, at the complainant's request. There is a discrepancy between the two statements, and if the later explanation had been given on the spot, there might have been verification by checking the money on the complainant's person, so that one or the other statement is untrue. But it must be remembered always that in a criminal case, the onus is on the prosecution to prove their case, and that the accused cannot be convicted merely on proof of his having told an untruth in relation to one or more of the facts alleged against him. In this case, apart from the difficulty of accepting the unsupported word of the complainant on the principal point of fact in the case, there are other factors discussed at length in the Special Judge's judgment which led him to doubt the evidence in relation to other facts making up the case. The acquittal was justified and we accordingly dismiss this petition. A. H. Petition dismissed.