1989 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AFZAL‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 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 1989 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: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AFZAL‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Ghulam Rasool for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 3rd November, 1984
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 5(1)(c) & (2)‑‑Misconduct‑‑Charge against accused that he cultivated land attached with his bungalow through Baildars of Government Department and as such was guilty of misconduct punishable under S.5(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947‑‑No evidence of dishonest or fraudulent conversion of property by accused being available conviction and sentence was set aside. Sardar Khurshid for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Sardar Khurshid for the State. Date of hearing: 3rd November, 1984 This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Senior Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Punjab, Lahore whereby he on 30‑11‑1980 convicted Muhammad Afzal appellant under section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to a fine of Rs.1,000 in default thereof to R.I. for 6 months.
2. The appellant, was an Overseer. Charge against him was that he cultivated land attached with his bungalow through Baildars of Irrigation Department and as such was guilty of misconduct punishable under section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
3. Since after hearing the learned counsel for the parties I feel inclined to accept the appeal and set aside the conviction on the ground that the allegations against the appellant admitted at its face value, his act would not constitute misconduct within the meaning of section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, so I need not set out facts in detail and enter into the merits of the case. I find that the allegations against the appellant were/are that he cultivated land attached with bungalow through Baildars of Irrigation Department and as such had committed an offence under section 5(1)(c) Prevention of Corruption Act. The relevant provision of law may be reproduced advantageously. Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read as follows:‑ "If he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do." From the bare reading of the provisions reproduced above, it is very much obvious that it is the dishonest or fraudulent conversion for one's use that constitutes offence punishable under section 5(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption " Act. Since in the case in hand there is no evidence of dishonest or fraudulent conversion of property by the appellant for his and at the worst it appears to be m case of use simpliciter, the conviction of appellant is thus not maintainable.
4. For what has been stated above, the appeal is accepted and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. M.Y.H./M‑1381/L Appeal allowed.