1968 P Cr (PLP)
TAJ MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1968 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court |
| Bench Members | Fazal-e-Akbar and Sajjad Ahmad, JJ |
| Parties | TAJ MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court bench comprising: Fazal-e-Akbar and Sajjad Ahmad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 P Cr (PLP) (TAJ MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sher Bahadur Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by G. S. Gideon, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 29th March 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar, dated the 15th of December 1967, in Criminal Appeal No. 171 of 1967). Appeal to Supreme Court-Re-assessment of evidence duly scrutinised by Courts below
Not function of Supreme Court Special leave to appeal refused. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD AHMAD, J.
Taj Muhammad petitioner who was a Patwari in Ihsanpur Circle in the Bannu District was convicted under sections 468 and 409, P. P. C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to a fine of Rs. 140 and Rs. 10 respectively on both the counts respectively. His appeal in the High Court has been dismissed, against which this petition has been brought for leave to appeal to this Court. The charges against the petitioner were that he had made false entries in. the revenue records to show his own grandfather Mehr Gul to be in possession of some evacuee land to help him in purchasing the same under a scheme framed under Martial Law Regulation No. 89/91, although it was actually in possession of P. Ws. Muhammad Nawaz and Mir Alam Khan sine tile inception of Pakistan. He had also not realized the Government fee from the aforesaid Mehr Gul while issuing copies of the Khasra Girdawaris of the land in question to him. Leave to appeal is sought on the ground that the petitioner has been convicted on insufficient evidence while his co-accused Badsha Gul, Girdawar has been acquitted on the same evidence. It is not the function of this Court to re-assess the evidence which has been duly scrutinized by the Courts below in the absence: of anything to how that they have departed from the recognized judicial standards in the appreciation of that evidence. Badsha Gul was given the benefit of doubt and that does riot react on the petitioner's guilt which stands fully proved on evidence. The petition is dismissed.