1984 PLP 285 (SCMR)
ELAHI BAKHSH-Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1984 PLP 285 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ELAHI BAKHSH-Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 285 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 285 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 285 (SCMR) (ELAHI BAKHSH-Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asghar Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Inayat Hussain, Advocate -on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 15th August, 1983.
- Asghar Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Inayat Hussain, Advocate -on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of Lahore High Court dated 16th April, 1983 in Cr. A. No. 98 of 1980/BWP).
Art. 185 (3) read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 420 and Pre vention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5 (2)-Cheating -Conviction for--Concurrent findings of fact by Courts below not suffering from any legal infirmity-Plea relating to question of procedure not raised before lower forums--Held, cannot be upheld in absence of any ref erence to relevant law--Leave to appeal refused. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH; J.‑This petition for leave to appeal has called in question the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for offences under section 420, P. P. C. and section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. Learned counsel tried to show that the findings of fact which are the basis of conviction are wrong. After hearing him on this aspect, we did not find any legal infirmity in concurrent findings of fact by the learned Courts below.
3. Learned counsel also pointed out what he considered as a legal defect in the trial. There were two similar instances of misappropriation and cheating within a span of a fortnight which were combined in one trial. Learned counsel argued that there should have been two separate trials. There is no force in this argument firstly because it being a question of procedure should have been pressed to its logical end before the lower forums, and second, the evidence regarding the second incident was not taken into account for convicting the petitioner on one count only. The conviction/sentence now impugned before us, it is conceded, is only on one count. The petitioner has not suffered any prejudice. And lastly learned counsel could not advance the argument by making reference to the law in question. His mere statement could not be accepted as sufficient to upheld the plea.
4. This petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. S. Q Petition dismissed.