1985 PLP 887 (MLD)
AFTAB HUSSAIN — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 887 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | AFTAB HUSSAIN — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), (a) Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 887 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), (a) Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 887 (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: 1985 PLP 887 (MLD) (AFTAB HUSSAIN — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafarullah Cheema for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 12th July, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 5(2)--Ample evidence found on record connecting accused with commission of crime for which he was convicted--Defence not challenging conviction and only prying for conjunction of sentence--Conviction maintained and sentence altered to fine in circumstances.
S. 5(2)--Sentence--Accused not only losing service but also suffering agony of protracted trial--Nature of sentence changed from rigorous imprisonment to fine in circumstances.-[sentence]. Muhammad Amjad for the State.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)
S. 5(2)--Sentence--Accused not only losing service but also suffering agony of protracted trial--Nature of sentence changed from rigorous imprisonment to fine in circumstances.-[sentence]. Zafarullah Cheema for Appellant. Muhammad Amjad for the State. Date of hearing: 12th July, 1984. JUDGMENT ' This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, whereby he on 15-3-1979 convicted Aftab Hussain appellant under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to imprisonment for nine months, R.I. and a fine of Rs.6,000, in default thereof to further R.I. for 9 months. 2. The learned counsel has not challenged the conviction of the appellant and rightly so because there is ample evidence on record to connect the appellant with the commission of crime for which he has been convicted. He simply requested for reduction in the sentence. In the circumstances of the case that the appellant has not only lost his service but also suffered agony of protracted trial, I feel inclined to alter the nature of sentence from 9 months, R.I. to a fine of Rs.1,000, in default thereof to further R.I. for 6 months. The fine of Rs.6,000 B already awarded by the trial court is maintained. Resultantly, the appellant shall deposit Rs.7,000 with the trial Court within two months failing which the trial Court shall issue warrants for his arrest and detention. H . A . K . Appeal partly accepted.