2000 PLP 434 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2000 PLP 434 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Kh. Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 434 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 434 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Kh. Muhammad Sharif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 434 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rana Nisar Ahmad Khan for Appellant. Badar Munir Malik for the State.
- Date of hearing: 3rd June, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 409‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.342‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Incriminating evidence brought on record by the prosecution had not been put to the accused in his statement recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C. which had caused prejudice to him‑‑‑Conviction and sentence of accused were consequently set aside and the case was remanded to Trial Court for fresh decision on merits after putting the incriminating prosecution evidence to accused in his statement to be recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C. as required by law.
Judgment & Decree
This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.232 of 1999 filed by Muhammad Ibrahim, who was convicted and sentenced by Special Court, Anti‑Corruption, Faisalabad on 26‑3‑1999 to undergo three years' R.I. under section 409, P.P.C. with a fine of Rs.35,000, in default thereof six months' R.I.
2. Brief allegation against the appellant was that while Chairman, District Usher and Zakat Committee No.2 Chak No.325 G.B. in 1985 he withdrew Rs.29,000 through two diGerent cheques and misappropriated that amount, while version of the appellant during the trial before the trial Court and also in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. was that he used the said amount on the construction of primary school.
3. Learned counsel fog the appellant has read before me, the prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. and the judgment of the learned trial Court. After going through the statement of the appellant recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., the incriminating evidence which has come on record through the evidence of Muhammad Iqbal, Zafar Ali and, Riaz Hussain P.W.2, the Auditor Ushr and Zakat Committee Department. The said incriminating evidence was never put up to the appellant in his statement recorded under 342, Cr.P.C. it has caused prejudice to the appellant.
4. I have asked learned A.A.‑G. to assist me in this case. He also concedes and stated that it was the legal obligation on the part of the learned trial Court to have put the question about incriminating evidence to the appellant in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C.
5. After hearing the parties, this appeal is accepted. Appellant shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The case is remanded back to the learned trial Court, who should put the questions of incriminating prosecution evidence to the appellant as required under the law and gives him an opportunity to answer in this regard in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. and thereafter, decide the case on merits. With these observations, this appeal stands disposed of. N.H.Q./M‑1175/L Case remanded.