1992 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 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: 1992 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Nisar Qutab for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 11thJuly, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 5(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑ Defence did not challenge conviction as ample evidence was available on record to connect accused with a commission of the offence who just after the raid had confessed having received the bribe amount‑‑‑Conviction of accused was consequently maintained‑‑‑Sentence of one year's R.I. awarded to accused was, however, altered to a sentence of fine of Rs.10,000 as he had not only lost his service, but had also suffered agony of protracted trial. Saleem Shad for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 5(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑ Defence did not challenge conviction as ample evidence was available on record to connect accused with a commission of the offence who just after the raid had confessed having received the bribe amount‑‑‑Conviction of accused was consequently maintained‑‑‑Sentence of one year's R.I. awarded to accused was, however, altered to a sentence of fine of Rs.10,000 as he had not only lost his service, but had also suffered agony of protracted trial. Sh. Nisar Qutab for Appellant. Saleem Shad for the State. Date of hearing: 11thJuly, 1984. This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Punjab, Lahore whereby he on 17‑4‑1979 convicted Muhammad Afzal Khan appellant under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to one year's R.I.
2. The learned counsel has not challenged the conviction of the appellant and rightly so because there is ample ‑ evidence on record to connect the appellant with the commission of the offence for which he has been convicted. Further, the appellant just after the raid confessed having receipt 6f Rs.200 as bribe. The learned counsel, however, requested for leniency in the matter of sentence. In the circumstances of the case that the appellant has not only lost his service but also suffered agony of protracted trial, I feel inclined to alter the nature of sentence from imprisonment for one year's R.I. to a fine of Rs.10,000 in default thereof to R.I. for one year. The appellant shall deposit Rs.10,000 with the trial Court within one month, failing which the trial Court shall issue warrants for his arrest and detention. N.H.Q./M‑337/L Sentence altered.