1986 P Cr (PLP)
SHAH KHATOON Appellant Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | SHAH KHATOON Appellant Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 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 1986 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: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (SHAH KHATOON Appellant Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Nasim Sabir for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 420‑‑Cheating, offence of‑‑Accused allegedly posing and receiving salary under another name‑‑Act of accused, accepting it at its face value, held, would not fall within definition A cheating and as such she could not be convicted under S. 420‑‑Accused was acquitted in circumstances. Rafi Siddiqui for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Rana Muhammad Nasim Sabir for Appellant. Rafi Siddiqui for the State. This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Senior Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Lahore whereby he, on 14‑9‑1985 while acquitting Shah Khatoon appellant of the charge under section 471, P.P.C. convicted her under section 420, P.P.C. and sentenced her to imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs.2,000 in default thereof S.I. for 3 months.
2. The charge against the appellant was that she had been posing as Mst. Zafar Maqbul teachers and had received salary from December, 1972 to May, 1977 in the name of Mst. Zafar Maqbul.
3. Since after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I feel in clined to accept the appeal on the ground that the allegations as well as the findings of the trial Court accepted at its face value no offence punishable under section 420, P.P.C. is made out against the appellant. I need not set out the facts in detail and enter into the merits of the case. I find that the trial Court in para. No. 12 of judgment has stated that; "The evidence of Mst. Irshad Begum and Mst: Kalsoom Akhtar proves beyond any manner of doubt that the accused had been posing as Mst. Zaffar Maqbul and had received salary from December, 1972 to May 1977, in the name of Mst. Zaffar Maqbul." I am of the view that the findings of the learned trial Court accepted at its face value, the act of the accused does not fall within the definition of cheating under, section 415, P. P. C. and as such she could not have been convicted under section 420, P.P.C.
4. For what has been said above, the appal is accepted and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. S.A. Appeal accepted.