P L D 1991 Lahore 310 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ASGHAR — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1991 Lahore 310 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASGHAR — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1991 Lahore 310 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1991 Lahore 310 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1991 Lahore 310 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ASGHAR — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Naveed Shehryar for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 5(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161
Raiding Magistrate and Inspector had neither seen the accused receiving tainted currency notes from complainant nor did they hear any talk between them preceding the money changing hands
Complainant admitted that the accused (Patwari) was responsible for property dispute between him and another person
Two persons were present at the time of raid and recovery of currency notes but were given up as unnecessary
Such persons were produced in defence and did not support prosecution version
Defence plea that complainant deceitfully placed sale-deed, meant for mutation, containing tainted money on the cot lying in office was a reasonable possibility
Accused was given benefit of doubt and acquitted. [p. 312) A
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Appeal No.215 of 1987, heard on 14th May, 1991. Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)
S. 5(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161
Raiding Magistrate and Inspector had neither seen the accused receiving tainted currency notes from complainant nor did they hear any talk between them preceding the money changing hands
Complainant admitted that the accused (Patwari) was responsible for property dispute between him and another person
Two persons were present at the time of raid and recovery of currency notes but were given up as unnecessary
Such persons were produced in defence and did not support prosecution version
Defence plea that complainant deceitfully placed sale-deed, meant for mutation, containing tainted money on the cot lying in office was a reasonable possibility
Accused was given benefit of doubt and acquitted. [p. 312) A Naveed Shehryar for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 14th May, 1991.