1985 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SHAFI and another‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFI and another‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 1985 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SHAFI and another‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kamal‑ud‑Din Mirza for Appellants.
- Date of hearing: 30th October, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss.420, 120‑B & 468‑‑Fraud‑‑Total amount received by absconder accused‑‑Accused receiving no money from any one and no direct evidence of their conspiracy with principal accused coming to light‑ Prosecution failing to prove case against accused beyond reasonable doubt‑‑Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted. Saleem Shad for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Saleem Shad for the State. Date of hearing: 30th October, 1984. These two Criminal Appeals Nos.513/78 by Abdus Salam and Mushtaq Hussain and 518/78 by Muhammad Shafi and Muhammad Siddiq appellants arise from the judgment of the learned Special Judge Anti- Corruption, Lahore, whereby he on 11‑5‑1978 convicted them under section 420, P.P.C. read with section 120‑B, P.P.C. Abdus Salam was also convicted under section 468, P.P.C. They were sentenced to six months' R.I. on each count and a fine of Rs.500 on each count, in default thereof further R.I. for 15 days.
2. Abdus Salam and Mushtaq Hussain were posted as clerks in the Office of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore whereas Muhammad Siddiq and Muhammad Shafi were property dealers. The charge against them was that they in collusion with each other fraudulently obtained 86.73,750 from Mian Muhammad Din father of the complainant S.A. Rahim P.W.1 They denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case the prosecution examined 41 witnesses.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellants denied the incriminating circumstances in defence he produced witnesses. Kamal Din Mirza learned counsel for Abdus Salam and Mushtaq Hussain contends that the prosecution has not produced any evidence of cheating by the appellants and their conspiracy with Iqbal Mirza the principal accused. The learned counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the total amount was received by Iqbal Mirza absconder accused and that the four appellants did not receive any money from any one and that there is no direct evidence of their conspiracy with the principal accused. In this view of the matter it can be safely said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
6. For what has been stated above, giving them the benefit of doubt, the appellants are acquitted of the charge. M. Y. H. Appeal accepted.