1990 PLP 199 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 199 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑S. 5(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Sanction for prosecution‑‑‑Contention that accused was Government employee and sanction for his prosecution was necessary which was not secured‑ ‑‑Such objection having not been raised either before Trial Court or before High Court, same could not be allowed to be raised before Supreme Court‑‑‑Petition was otherwise barred by two days and no satisfactory explanation had been furnished for delay‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed in circumstances.‑‑Sanction for prosecution. |
| Bench Members | Javid Iqbal, Ghulam Mujaddid arid Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 199 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 199 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑S. 5(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Sanction for prosecution‑‑‑Contention that accused was Government employee and sanction for his prosecution was necessary which was not secured‑ ‑‑Such objection having not been raised either before Trial Court or before High Court, same could not be allowed to be raised before Supreme Court‑‑‑Petition was otherwise barred by two days and no satisfactory explanation had been furnished for delay‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed in circumstances.‑‑Sanction for prosecution. bench comprising: Javid Iqbal, Ghulam Mujaddid arid Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 199 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Abdus Sattar Chaghtai, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abdul Asim Jaafery, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 17th April, 1989.
- The petitioner was tried for an offence under section 165‑A, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and vide judgment of the Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption he was convicted to three years' R.I. plus fine. On his appeal the conviction as well as sentence of fine were maintained but the sentence of imprisonment was reduced from three to two years' RI. The allegation against the petitioner was that he being Naib Qasid of the Court of Additional District Judge Bhakkar had accepted bribe of Rs.5,000. from a party in a case with the understanding that he would get his appeal accepted. There was evidence against him of two advocate witnesses as well as the testimony of the Additional District Judge himself before whom he admitted to have received that amount with the promise to show favour to the complainant. It was on the basis of this evidence and his own confession that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court and subsequently in appeal the sentence of imprisonment was reduced in consideration of his suffering for having been removed from service as well as having been in jail and not granted bail. Learned counsel attempted to argue before us that the petitioner was a Government employee and obtaining of sanction for prosecution in his case was necessary which was not secured in the present case. This objection has not been raised at any stage, neither before the trial Court nor before the High Court. It therefore cannot be allowed to be raised at this stage. The petition is even otherwise barred by two days and no satisfactory explanation has been furnished for the delay. The petition is therefore dismissed as time‑barred as well as on merits.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court Lahore dated 24th January, 1989 in Cr.A. 1028 of 1988). ‑‑‑S. 5(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Sanction for prosecution‑‑‑Contention that accused was Government employee and sanction for his prosecution was necessary which was not secured‑ ‑‑Such objection having not been raised either before Trial Court or before High Court, same could not be allowed to be raised before Supreme Court‑‑‑Petition was otherwise barred by two days and no satisfactory explanation had been furnished for delay‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed in circumstances.‑‑[Sanction for prosecution]. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 5(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Sanction for prosecution‑‑‑Contention that accused was Government employee and sanction for his prosecution was necessary which was not secured‑ ‑‑Such objection having not been raised either before Trial Court or before High Court, same could not be allowed to be raised before Supreme Court‑‑‑Petition was otherwise barred by two days and no satisfactory explanation had been furnished for delay‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed in circumstances.‑‑[Sanction for prosecution]. Malik Abdus Sattar Chaghtai, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abdul Asim Jaafery, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 17th April, 1989. JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court Lahore dated 24th January 1989 whereby appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner was tried for an offence under section 165‑A, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and vide judgment of the Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption he was convicted to three years' R.I. plus fine. On his appeal the conviction as well as sentence of fine were maintained but the sentence of imprisonment was reduced from three to two years' RI. The allegation against the petitioner was that he being Naib Qasid of the Court of Additional District Judge Bhakkar had accepted bribe of Rs.5,000. from a party in a case with the understanding that he would get his appeal accepted. There was evidence against him of two advocate witnesses as well as the testimony of the Additional District Judge himself before whom he admitted to have received that amount with the promise to show favour to the complainant. It was on the basis of this evidence and his own confession that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court and subsequently in appeal the sentence of imprisonment was reduced in consideration of his suffering for having been removed from service as well as having been in jail and not granted bail. Learned counsel attempted to argue before us that the petitioner was a Government employee and obtaining of sanction for prosecution in his case was necessary which was not secured in the present case. This objection has not been raised at any stage, neither before the trial Court nor before the High Court. It therefore cannot be allowed to be raised at this stage. The petition is even otherwise barred by two days and no satisfactory explanation has been furnished for the delay. The petition is therefore dismissed as time‑barred as well as on merits. M.A.K./ M‑1004/S Petition dismissed.