1990 PLP 207 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mrs. Z. A. MALIK and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 207 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Javid Iqbal and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mrs. Z. A. MALIK and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 207 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 207 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Javid Iqbal and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 207 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mrs. Z. A. MALIK and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Irshad Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Saleem Ahmad Malik, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.l and 2.
- Date of hearing: 11th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
[On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 1st November, 1988 in P.S.LA. No.39 of 1988). ‑‑‑S.409/419/420/468/471‑‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Complaint case‑‑‑Allegations against accused were not established by petitioner‑‑‑Contention that if petitioner had been permitted by Trial Court to produce further evidence he could have established his case against acquittal of accused‑‑‑Petitioner was not in possession of any letter of appointment showing that he was an employee of School of which accused was Headmistress‑‑Petitioner could not produce any document showing that he ever worked as a peon in the said school nor he could show anything from which it could be inferred that he received his salary from school funds that even he had no service book to produce‑‑‑High Court rightly found that even if petitioner had been permitted to produce entire evidence, that would have not served any purpose‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Irshad Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Saleem Ahmad Malik, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.l and
2. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 11th June, 1989. JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 1st. November, 1988 whereby petition for special leave to appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner had filed a complaint under section 409/419/420/468/471 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 in the Court of the Special Judge Anti -Corruption, Lahore against the respondents. The trial Court dismissed the complaint. Thereupon the petitioner filed a petition for special leave to appeal before the Lahore High Court, Lahore challenging the order of the trial Court, but as stated above it was dismissed. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal. The petitioner did not succeed in either of the Courts because he could not establish any of the allegations levelled by him as against the respondents. It was contended by learned counsel before us that the petitioner should have been allowed to produce further evidence and that if the petitioner had been so permitted by the trial Court he could have established his case. But this arguments was raised before both the Courts and was rejected for numerous reasons e.g. that he was not in possession of any letter of appointment showing that he was an employee of the school of which respondent No.1 was Headmistress, he could not produce any document that he ever worked as a peon in the said school, he could not show anything from which it could be inferred that he received his salary from the school funds and that even he had no service book to produce. Consequently it had been rightly held that even if he had been according to him, permitted to produce the entire evidence, that would have not served any purpose. Since this is the position no interference is called for. The petition is accordingly dismissed. M.A.K./M‑1036/S Petition dismissed