1988 P Cr (PLP)
LIAQAT ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | LIAQAT ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 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: 1988 P Cr (PLP) (LIAQAT ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Talib Hussain Awan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 561-A--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161--Prevention of Corruption Act. (II of 1947), S. 5(2)--Proceedings before Special Judge, quashing of--Amount received as illegal gratification--Civil suit also pending pertaining to same amount--Number of witnesses cited by prosecution--Departmental proceedings against accused withdrawn- F.I.R. lodged after 5 years--No case for quashing of proceedings, held, was made out--Duties and functions of Trial Court could not be pre-empted--Criminal proceedings as well as civil suit could continue simultaneously--Quashing of proceedings refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
S. 561-A--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161--Prevention of Corruption Act. (II of 1947), S. 5(2)--Proceedings before Special Judge, quashing of--Amount received as illegal gratification--Civil suit also pending pertaining to same amount--Number of witnesses cited by prosecution--Departmental proceedings against accused withdrawn- F.I.R. lodged after 5 years--No case for quashing of proceedings, held, was made out--Duties and functions of Trial Court could not be pre-empted--Criminal proceedings as well as civil suit could continue simultaneously--Quashing of proceedings refused in circumstances. Malik Talib Hussain Awan for Petitioner. Through this application Liaqat Ali petitioner wants this Court to quash proceedings in a case under section 161, P.P.C. and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, pending against him before Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha. 2. The charge against him is that he demanded and accepted Rs.15,000 as illegal gratification from Dost Muhammad complainant for showing favour in grant of proprietary rights of land measuring 16 Acres, 6 Kanals and 2 Marlas. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is a delay of 5 years in lodging the F. I. R.; that the departmental inquiry conducted by a Tehsildar against the petitioner on the same allegation was withdrawn and that Dost Muhammad complainant has filed a civil suit against the petitioner and one Muhammad Tufail for the recovery of Rs.15,000 which were paid by him to the petitioner as illegal gratification, which is still pending adjudication. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. I find that there is no legal bar to the prosecution of the petitioner in criminal case during the pendency of his civil suit pertaining to the amount allegedly received by the petitioner as illegal gratification; that the prosecution proposes to examine number of witnesses against the petitioner and that the submissions made by the learned counsel that there is a delay of 5 years in lodging the F.I.R. and departmental inquiry conducted by Tehsildar against the petitioner was withdrawn do not make out a case for quashment of proceedings. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, I don't want to pre-empt the duties and function of the trial Court. Since criminal proceedings as well as civil suit can continue simultaneously, therefore, I do not desire to stay proceedings in criminal case till the decision of civil suit between the parties. For what has been said above, there being no merit, the petition is dismissed in limine. S. A./L-26/L Petition dismissed.