1984 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE-Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1984 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE-Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 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: 1984 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE-Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Sarwar for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 14th May, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 420/468/471-Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2) Forgery - Using forged document as genuine - No evidence available to show that accused forged document in question or produced same before any one or induced someone to part with property in relation to such document--Conviction set aside. --S. 5(2)-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 420/469/471--Accused not a public servant at time of alleged commission of crime-Conviction under section 5(2) of Act II of 1947, held, not maintainable. Muhammad Ali Naqvi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Rana Muhammad Sarwar for Appellant. Muhammad Ali Naqvi for the State. Date of hearing: 14th May, 1984. The three Criminal Appeals Nos. 818, 819 and 820/77 arise from the judgment of learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption whereby he on 20th September, 1977 convicted Muhammad Siddiq appellant under various sections of P. P. C., under section 420/468/471, P. P. C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 sentenced him to one year's R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500, in default thereof to further R. I. for 6 months on each count with the direction that the sentences would run concurrently. I propose to dispose of these appeals through a single judgment.
2. The appellant was working in Sapah-e-Khidmat in Education Corp, District Sheikhupura. The charge against him is that he got employment in Sapah-e-Khidmat by producing forged intimation result card Exh. P. W. 4/B pertaining to intermediate Examination, 1970 under Roll No. 4362. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses in each case.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr. P. C., the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. In defence he produced two witnesses.
5. Since after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am inclined to set aside the conviction of the appellant on the face of the charge, I need not set out the facts' in detail and enter into detailed discussion of evidence adduced by the parties. I find that the conviction of the appellant under various sections is not maintainable. As far the offences under sections 418/471, P. P. C., I find (as admitted by the learned counsel for the State) that there is no evidence to the effect that the appellant forged intimation result card Exh. P. W. 4/B or he produced the same before anyone: As far the offence under section 420, P. P. C. I find that there is no evidence to the effect that the appellant induced someone to part with the property. Coming to section 5(2) 47, 1 find that at the time of alleged commission of crime, the appellant was not a 'public servant. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion that the conviction recorded by the trial Court under aforesaid sections cannot be maintained under the law.
6. For what has been stated above, the appeal is accepted and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. The fine if paid shall be refunded to him. M. Y. H. Appeal accepted.