1985 PLP 563 (SCMR)
MASOOD AHMAD alias MAQSOOD AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 563 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C. J., Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | MASOOD AHMAD alias MAQSOOD AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 563 (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 563 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C. J., Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah 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 563 (SCMR) (MASOOD AHMAD alias MAQSOOD AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Q.M. Saleem Senior Advocate Supreme and M. Aslam Ch. Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 21st November, 1984.
- Q.M. Saleem Senior Advocate Supreme and M. Aslam Ch. Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- We have heard Mr. Q. M. Salim, learned Advocate for the petitioner but taking into account ail the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the terms of the last order passed by the High Court on the petitioner's bail application we find that no grounds exist for interfering with the discretion exercised by the Court below which has been exercised quite legally and properly.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 31-10-1984 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous 2872-B of 1984) _
Art.185(3)--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) , S. 197--Petitioner involved in case of corruption and accused under Ss. 224, 225,. 186, 332, 353 & 506, P.P.C.--Refused bail by Special Judge and High Court on two occasions--Supreme Court declined to interfere with discretion exercised by Court below--Leave to appeal refused. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 21st November, 1984. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑ A case has been registered against the petitioner under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for demanding rupees one hundred from the mother of the complainant, Arif Hussain, as illegal gratification. The case of the prosecution is that the mother of Arif Hussain was not able to complete the construction of her building on a plot in Gulshan‑e‑Ravi Scheme, Lahore, within the stipulated period. The petitioner being an employee of the Lahore Development Authority was approached by the complainant for extension of time in completing the construction, but he demanded Rs.100 as illegal gratification for this purpose. The complainant, however, did not want to pay any bribe and he, therefore, reported the matter to the Anti‑Corruption Establishment. A raiding party, headed by a Magistrate, was constituted to trap the petitioner when he was allegedly receiving the illegal gratification. He was, accordingly, trapped and currency notes of Rs.100 were recovered from his pocket, where after he was arrested. But he put up a resistance with a view to rescuing himself from the clutches of the raiding party. In this effort, he was helped by some employees of the Lahore Development Authority and members of the Union. They assaulted the members of the raiding party and gave them fist blows and succeeded in taking away the petitioner but ultimately he was again arrested. A separate case under sections 224, 225, 186, 332, 353 and 506, P.P.C. was registered for the said offence. The bail application moved by the petitioner having been refused by the Special Judge and the High Court on two occasions he has now approached this Court for bail. In the last order passed on 31‑10‑1984 by the High Court, a direction was issued to 'the trial Court to conclude the trial within three months failing which the petitioner was given liberty to apply again for bail to the High Court. We have heard Mr. Q. M. Salim, learned Advocate for the petitioner but taking into account ail the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the terms of the last order passed by the High Court on the petitioner's bail application we find that no grounds exist for interfering with the discretion exercised by the Court below which has been exercised quite legally and properly. This petition, therefore fails, and is dismissed hereby. M.I. Petition dismissed.