1991 PLP 2015 (SCMR)
KHAN MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 2015 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, C.J. and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry J |
| Parties | KHAN MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 2015 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 2015 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, C.J. and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 2015 (SCMR) (KHAN MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Basharatullah, Advocate Supreme Court and M.K.N. Kohli, Advocate -on-Record for Petitioner:
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 2nd June, 1991.
- Basharatullah, Advocate Supreme Court and M.K.N. Kohli, Advocate -on‑Record for Petitioner:
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, dated 16-10-1990 in Criminal Appeal No.41 of 1990).
S.5(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Illegal gratification
Conviction of accused was maintained by High Court on charge of receiving illegal gratification
Leave to appeal was granted to consider that defence evidence had not been considered and the defence witnesses stated that TA. amount was sent to the concerned police station for disbursement.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J: ‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 16‑10‑1990.
2. The facts, in brief, are that on the report of Abdul Ghafoor Constable, a case was registered against the petitioner that he had received illegal gratification of Rs.400 from the complainant. No raid was conducted. No amount was recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner was convicted by the Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of Act II of 1947, and sentenced to one year and fine of Rs.5,
000. The High Court in appeal maintained the conviction and fine but reduced the imprisonment to six months with benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C.
3. After going through the impugned judgment, we find that defence evidence has not been considered. The two witnesses produced by the defence stated that TA. amount was sent to the concerned police station for disbursement. Leave is granted. MA.K./K‑171/S Leave granted.