2000 PLP 343 (MLD)
Mian ,MANZOOR AHMED WATTOO — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2000 PLP 343 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mian ,MANZOOR AHMED WATTOO — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 343 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 343 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 343 (MLD) (Mian ,MANZOOR AHMED WATTOO — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.409/109/420/467/471
Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)
Accused being the Chief Executive of the Province was exercising dominion/control over the funds and was the trustee of the property and funds of the Province which he could not usurp on pseudo applications for his personal use
Alleged applicants in their statements recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C. had fully supported the prosecution case and other witnesses too in their statements under 5.161, Cr.P.C. had implicated the accused
Evidence available on record showed that accused had misappropriated Rs.55 lacs from the Fund and none of the persons in whose names cheques were issued had received a single penny
Accused had remained Chief Minister after two angina pectrois attacks and his recent medical report did not justify release on bail even on medical grounds
Bail was declined to accused in circumstances.
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.409/109/420/467/471
Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)
No evidence was available on record to show that the accused had either written the fake applications for getting the amount from the Fund themselves or recommended the same-- Allegation of the said applications having been given through the accused was also not supported by the record