PCRLJ 1994

1994 P Cr (PLP)

MUHAMMAD RASHID — Appellant Versus THESTATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
N/A
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1994 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members N/A
Parties MUHAMMAD RASHID — Appellant Versus THESTATE — Respondent
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 P Cr (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 P Cr (PLP)?

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: 1994 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD RASHID — Appellant Versus THESTATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 5(2)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161

Appreciation of evidence-- Complainant who had allegedly handed over the tainted currency to the accused had not supported the prosecution case at the trial

None of the members of the raiding party including the Magistrate and the Circle Officer had either witnessed the passing of the tainted currency to the accused or heard the conversation between the complainant and the accused at the relevant time

Fact of the accused of having not been able to reasonably explain the possession of tainted currency, by itself, was not sufficient to hold him guilty of the charge

Accused was acquitted in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

Mian Ghulam Rasool for Appellant. J.V. Gardner for the State. Date of hearing: 16thMarch, 1994. This is an appeal filed by Muhammad Rashid convict impugning his conviction under section 161 of the P.P.C. read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and his consequent punishment of one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.5,000 or three months' R:I. in default of payment of fine which conviction and sentences had been recorded by a learned Special Judge, Anti --Corruption, Sargodha at Faisalabad through his impugned judgment, dated 14-6-1989.

2. The prosecution case was that Rashid appellant was employed as a Sub-Inspector in the Cooperative Society in the area of Tehsil Samundari and had demanded Rs.500 as illegal gratification for recommending the sanctioning of a cooperative loan for the Cooperative Society of Chak No.594/GB of Tehsil Samundari. Rustam. Ali (P.W.3) was the cashier of the said Society and had reported at the Police Station A.C.E., Faisalabad regarding this illegal demand of the appellant as a result of which raid had been conducted which had been supervised by Syed Ali Aust, M.I.C. (P.W.2).

3. The admitted position is that Rustam Ali complainant who has allegedly handed over the tainted currency of Rs.500 to the appellant had not supported the prosecution case at the trial. None of the members of the raiding party including Syed Ali Aust, M.I.C. (P.W.2) and Saadullah, Circle Officer of A.C.E., had either witnessed the passing of the tainted currency, to Rashid appellant or had heard the conversation which had taken place between the complainant and the appellant at the relevant time. The tainted currency had been given to the appellant inside a shop, which is well away and out of the sight of the said members of the raiding party. The only fact that the appellant had not been able to reasonably explain the possession of the tainted currency was not sufficient to hold him guilty of the charge.

4. This being so, I find that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of Rashid appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the above-noticed conviction and sentences recorded against Rashid appellant through the impugned judgment, dated 14-6-1989 of the learned Special Judge, Anti --Corruption, Sargodha (Camp at Faisalabad) are set aside alongwith the said judgment. Muhammad Rashid appellant is acquitted of the above-mentioned charges. He is on bail after suspension of the sentence recorded against him. He is set at liberty after being discharged from the said bonds which are hereby cancelled.

5. Criminal Appeal No.462 of 1989 is allowed in the above terms. N.H.Q./M-1546/L Appeal allowed.