1985 P Cr (PLP)
ILAM DIN Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | ILAM DIN Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)‑‑ 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) (ILAM DIN Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hasnat Ahmad for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 12th July, 1984
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑
‑S. 5(2)‑‑Illegal gratification‑‑Sentence‑‑Accused not only lost his service but also suffered agony of protracted trial‑‑Nature of sentence altered from imprisonment to fine.‑‑[Sentence]. A.D. Sajid for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑
‑S. 5(2)‑‑Illegal gratification‑‑Sentence‑‑Accused not only lost his service but also suffered agony of protracted trial‑‑Nature of sentence altered from imprisonment to fine.‑‑[Sentence]. Hasnat Ahmad for Appellant. A.D. Sajid for the State. Date of hearing: 12th July, 1984 This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Sargodha whereby he on 13‑3‑1979 convicted Ham Din appellant under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to nine months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.11,000, in default thereof to further R.I. for 11 months.
2. The learned counsel has not challenged the conviction of the appellant and rightly so because there is ample evidence to connect the appellant with the commission of crime for which he has been convicted. He simply requested for the reduction in the 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 9 months' R.I. to a fine of 118.1,000, in default thereof to further R.I. for 6 months. The fine of 11s.11,00 awarded by the trial Court is, however, maintained. The appellant shall deposit Rs.12,000 in all with the trial Court failing which the trial Court shall issue warrants for arrest and detention of the appellant. M.Y.H Appeal accepted.