1985 P Cr (PLP)
MAQBOOL AHMAD‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MAQBOOL AHMAD‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ 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) (MAQBOOL AHMAD‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hafiz Tariq Naseem for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 18th September, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 409‑‑Sentence, reduction in‑‑Accused faced agony of a protracted trial and his appeal coming up after 5 years‑‑Accused, an old man of 56 years also losing his job‑‑Sentence of three years' R.I. altered to fine of Rs.20,000 while sentence of fine of Rs.40,000 imposed by trial Court, maintained.‑‑[Sentence]. Bashir Baig for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 409‑‑Sentence, reduction in‑‑Accused faced agony of a protracted trial and his appeal coming up after 5 years‑‑Accused, an old man of 56 years also losing his job‑‑Sentence of three years' R.I. altered to fine of Rs.20,000 while sentence of fine of Rs.40,000 imposed by trial Court, maintained.‑‑[Sentence]. Hafiz Tariq Naseem for Appellant. Bashir Baig for the State. Date of hearing: 18th September, 1984. This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Punjab, Lahore whereby he on 22‑4‑1979 convicted Maqbool Ahmad appellant under section 409, P.P.C. read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to three years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.40,000 in default thereof two years' R.I.
2. The learned counsel has not challenged the conviction and rightly so because there is ample oral and documentary evidence to connect the appellant with the commission of the crime. Furthermore, the appellant did not care to cross‑examine the prosecution witnesses who had deposed against him. The learned counsel has requested for leniency in the matter of sentence. In the circumstances of the case that the appellant is now of 56 years in age; that he has lost his service and that he has suffered agony of protracted trial, I am of the view that it would not be proper to send him back to jail after five years of his conviction. The sentence of imprisonment of three years' R.I. is, therefore, altered to a fine of Rs.20,000, in default thereof he would undergo R.I. for two years. The fine of Rs.40,000 and sentence in default thereof already awarded by the trial Court is maintained. Resultantly, the appellant shall deposit in the trial Court Rs.60,000 (Sixty thousand) within three months, failing which the trial Court shall issue warrant for his arrest and detention. S.G.D Sentence altered.