1971 PLP 52 (SCMR)
SEKANDAR ALI‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1971 PLP 52 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SEKANDAR ALI‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1971 PLP 52 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1971 PLP 52 (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: 1971 PLP 52 (SCMR) (SEKANDAR ALI‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ruhul Islam, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. R. Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 30th May 1970.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 7th November 1969, in Appeal No. 617 of 1966). Criminal trial‑Case against accused stands or falls on its own evidence‑Neither evidence nor judgment of previous con nected case relevant for purpose of conviction or acquittal‑Conten tion that lower Court committed illegality in not considering judgment of acquittal in previous case, in circumstances, held, untenable. (b) Practice‑Appreciation of evidence by Courts below- Supreme Court does not entertain contentions on subject. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑The petitioner ha; been convicted under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code on the allegation that he as Tehsildar asked for and received bribe for accepting rents for a particular jama from P. W. 1 Shamsul Haque. He was caught as the result of a trap attended among others by a Magistrate and the money paid as rent and as bribe were recovered from the possession of the petitioner and his co‑accused Lal Mia respectively. Co‑accused Lal Mia was petitioner's Paik. The identical marked currency notes were seized from their posses sion and the petitioner and his co‑accused were tried for offences under sections 161 and 161/114 of the Penal Code respectively and while the petitioner was convicted and sentenced the co- accused was acquitted. The petitioner's defence was that he was falsely prosecuted at the instance of a college student P. W. Shamsul Haque who had a grudge against the petitioner. On behalf of the petitioner it has been contended that the High Court illegally omitted to consider the judgment of a con nected previous case in which the petitioner was acquitted. The contention has a reference to the splitting up of the case against the petitioner at the direction of the High Court, and is evidently untenable. The present case against the petitioner stands or fails on its own evidence, and neither the evidence nor the judgment of the previous case concerning another transaction can be taken into consideration for the purpose of conviction or acquittal. Other contentions on behalf of the petitioner related to appreciation of the evidence by the Courts below, and this Court does not entertain such contentions. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.