1989SCMR1814 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AKHTAR Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR1814 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Javid lqbal, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKHTAR Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR1814 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR1814 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Javid lqbal, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR1814 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AKHTAR Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ishaque, Advocate Supreme Court Court and Syed Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 12th April, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑5. 5(2)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)=‑Petition for leave to appeal against conviction for accepting illegal gratification‑‑High Court had set aside conviction under S.5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 but had maintained conviction under S.161, Penal Code‑ Convict's only plea in support of his petition for leave was that he being a mere record‑keeper in the Department was not in a position to show any favour to complainant in any manner and thus his case did not fall within provisions of S.161, Penal Code‑‑Held, question whether petitioner was or was not in a position himself to show favour to complainant was immaterial for inter alia, S. 161, Penal Code makes it an offence for any public servant to accept illegal remuneration as a motive for rendering or attempting to render any service with any public servant‑‑Convict's conviction thus did not suffer from any legal infirmity‑‑Leave refused. Akhtar Hussain Khan v. State 1974 S C M R 199 ref. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner was a record‑keeper in the office of the Income‑tax Department at Bahawalpur. He was arrested by a raiding party headed by a Magistrate while accepting Rs.300 as illegal gratification from Amir Ali (PW‑1), a timber merchant of Bahawalpur. After a regular trial, he was convicted of an offence under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code, read with section 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act, by the Special Judge (Central) and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. On appeal, the High Court set aside his conviction under section 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act, but maintained his conviction and sentence under section 161, P.P.C.. He seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court.
2. In support of this petition, the only contention raised is that the petitioner was mere record‑keeper in the Income ‑tax Department and as such he was not in a position to show any favour to Amir Ali in any manner. Thus, his case did not fall within section 161, P.P.C. This contention is without any merit. 1t is in evidence that the petitioner on his own went to the business premises of Amir Ali (PW‑1) and told him that he had been assessed to income‑tax after receipt of his papers from Lahore and that Amir Ali should strike a bargain with him. He demanded Rs. 1,000 for hushing up the matter but the bargain was struck at Rs.500. It is immaterial whether the petitioner was or was not in a position himself to show any favour to Amir Ali, for, inter alia, section 161, P.P.C. makes it an offence for any public servant to accept illegal remuneration as a motive for rendering or attempting to render any service with any public servant. In Akhtar Hussain Khan v. State (1974 S.C.M.R 199) the conviction of an 4, employee of a municipal servant was upheld by this Court even though it was not j within his ,power to render the promised services to the complainant. The petitioner's conviction does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The petition is dismissed. A.A./M‑988/S Petition dismissed.