1985 PLP 1373 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1373 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1373 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1373 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1373 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ataur Rehman, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 26th February, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 17‑12‑1984, in Cr. Appeal No. 357 of 1984). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)‑‑Conviction and sentence challenged‑‑No question of law raised‑‑Supreme Court declined to reappraise evidence specially when Courts below had not overlooked any material evidence on record.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑Muhammad Nawaz, petitioner, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 17‑12‑1984, dismissing his Criminal Appeal (No. 357 of 1984). The petitioner was tried for an offence under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for having demanded and obtained Rs. 500 as illegal gratification from Muhammad Ramzan, P.W.
2. He was found guilty by the trial Court and convicted for the said offence vide which he was sentenced 11 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5,000 and in default to further 5 months' R.I. His appeal was dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned judgment. Hence the present petition. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned judgment. No question of law has been raised of the petitioner's counsel who only wants us to re‑appraise the evidence and reverse the finding of fact arrived at by the two Courts below. We do not however consider this to be a fit case for grant of leave merely for reappraisal of evidence specially when the petitioner's counsel has failed to point out that the Court below have overlooked any material portion of the evidence of the record. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.