1984 PLP 1288 (MLD)
AKBAR ALI — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1288 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | AKBAR ALI — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1288 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1288 (MLD)?
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: 1984 PLP 1288 (MLD) (AKBAR ALI — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Major Waheed-ud-Din for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 27th October, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 5(c)--Accused allegedly removing stamps from applications and misappropriating same--Accused having already been acquitted of charge under S. 409, P.P.C.--No direct/indirect evidence of commission of misconduct by accused within meaning of S. 5, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, available--No one seeing accused removing and disposing of stamps in any manner--Possibility of removal of stamps by anyone else not ruled out--Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted in circumstances. Muhammad Ali Naqvi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Ali Naqvi for the State. Date of hearing: 27th October, 1984. This criminal appeal arises from the 'judgment of the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore, whereby he on 24-5-1983 convicted Akbar Ali appellant under section 5(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.5,000 and in default thereof to further R.I. for three months.
2. The appellant was posted as constable/ license clerk in the office of Superintendent Police, Traffic, Lahore. The charge against him was that he removed stamps worth Rs.20 from 228 applications and as such misappropriated stamps worth Rs.4,
500. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced eight witnesses.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He produced two witnesses in his defence.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is no evidence of removal of stamps by the appellant. The learned counsel for the State has not controverted this submission.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties in the light of evidence on record. I find that the appellant has already been acquitted of the charge under section 409, P.P.C. that there is no direct/indirect evidence of the commission of misconduct by the appellant within the meaning of section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and that no one saw him removing or disposing of the stamps in any manner. In the circumstances, the possibility that the stamps might have been removed by someone else cannot be excluded.
7. For what has been stated above giving him the benefit of the doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge. H . A . K Appeal accepted