1985 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 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: 1985 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Latif Khosa for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 15th October, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947), S. 5(2)‑‑Illegal gratification‑‑Sentence‑‑Accused receiving rupees twenty only‑‑Suffering agony of trial‑‑Nature of sentence altered from imprisonment to fine.‑ [Sentence]. S.M. Hamid Ali for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947), S. 5(2)‑‑Illegal gratification‑‑Sentence‑‑Accused receiving rupees twenty only‑‑Suffering agony of trial‑‑Nature of sentence altered from imprisonment to fine.‑ [Sentence]. Sardar Muhammad Latif Khosa for Appellant. S.M. Hamid Ali for the State. Date of hearing: 15th October, 1984. This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Senior Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Punjab, Lahore, whereby he on 8‑5‑1983 convicted Muhammad Hussain appellant under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5 of the Prevention of. Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 in default thereof to further R,I. for three months.
2. The learned counsel on the instructions of the appellant has decided not to challenge the conviction and rightly so because there is sufficient reliable evidence to prove the commission of the crime by the appellant. He has requested for leniency in sentence. In the circumstances of the case that the appellant has suffered agony of trial and that the allegations are that he received Rs.20 only, I feel inclined to alter the nature of sentence of imprisonment of six months' R to a fine of Rs.5,000 in default thereof to R.I. for six months. The fine of Rs.1,000 and sentence in lieu thereof already awarded by the trial Court is maintained. Resultantly, the appellant shall deposit Rs.6,000 (Six thousand) with the trial Court within two months failing which the trial Court shall issue warrants for his arrest and detention. M.Y.H. Appeal allowed