1985 PLP 1922 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1922 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ---Art. 185(3)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161--Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)--Sentence, reduction of--Ahmad of Small Causes Court convicted and sentenced on charge of demanding/ accepting bribe--Contention that sentence was very heavy and in view of fact that Eid was approaching, it be reduced to that already undergone, repelled--Considering facts of case, specially department in which petitioner was working, and function he was performing, held, it was not a fit case for reduction of sentence because only by awarding heavier sentences evil of corruption can be eradicated.--Sentence. |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1922 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1922 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ---Art. 185(3)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161--Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)--Sentence, reduction of--Ahmad of Small Causes Court convicted and sentenced on charge of demanding/ accepting bribe--Contention that sentence was very heavy and in view of fact that Eid was approaching, it be reduced to that already undergone, repelled--Considering facts of case, specially department in which petitioner was working, and function he was performing, held, it was not a fit case for reduction of sentence because only by awarding heavier sentences evil of corruption can be eradicated.--Sentence. bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1922 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rashid Murtaza Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 4th June, 1985.
- Rashid Murtaza Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- M.A. Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 16th February, 1985, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 552 of 1984).
Art. 185(3)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161--Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)--Sentence, reduction of--Ahmad of Small Causes Court convicted and sentenced on charge of demanding/ accepting bribe--Contention that sentence was very heavy and in view of fact that Eid was approaching, it be reduced to that already undergone, repelled--Considering facts of case, specially department in which petitioner was working, and function he was performing, held, it was not a fit case for reduction of sentence because only by awarding heavier sentences evil of corruption can be eradicated.--[Sentence]. M.A. Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑Muhammad Aslam, an Ahlmad in the Court of Small Causes Court at Lahore, was accused of demanding and accepting bribe and was convicted by the learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for which he was sentenced to 2 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 (in default of payment of fine two months' R.I. on each count). He filed an appeal before the High Court which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment.
2. Being dissatisfied he seeks leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of the High Court.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned judgment. The main contention urged by the learned counsel before us was that the sentence awarded to the petitioner was very heavy and in,, view of the fact that Eid is approaching, the sentence be reduced to' that already undergone by him.
4. Considering the facts of the case and specially the Department in which the petitioner was working and the function that he was performing we do not at all consider it a fit case for reduction of sentence because only by awarding heavier sentences the evil of corruption can be eradicated. As a result we cannot accept the plea urged by the petitioner's counsel. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. M. I. Petition dismissed.