1995 PLP 1181 (SCMR)
NAZIR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995 PLP 1181 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | NAZIR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 1181 (SCMR)?
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 1995 PLP 1181 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 1181 (SCMR) (NAZIR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 4th May, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 8‑3‑1993, of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 214/91). ‑‑‑‑S. 5(2)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Same currency notes of which the numbers had been recorded by the Magistrate had been recovered from the accused‑‑‑No ill‑will had been alleged against the Magistrate who had supervised the raid‑‑‑Findings of fact by the Courts below were concurrent and there was no misreading of evidence‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 5(2)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Same currency notes of which the numbers had been recorded by the Magistrate had been recovered from the accused‑‑‑No ill‑will had been alleged against the Magistrate who had supervised the raid‑‑‑Findings of fact by the Courts below were concurrent and there was no misreading of evidence‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 4th May, 1994. ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to , appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 8‑3‑1993.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner, while working as Sub -Inspector, Cooperative Society, demanded Rs:1,000 as illegal gratification from Muhammad Ali Tariq, Cashier of the said society, for preparation of case of grant of loan. A raid under the supervision of Magistrate was arranged and the petitioner was apprehended and the tainted amount was recovered from him. The conversation made by the petitioner with the complainant was also heard by the Magistrate. The complainant examined five witnesses including the complainant and the raiding Magistrate. The plea of the accused was that the complainant P.W.2 was a defaulter in the payment of earlier loan and the amount of Rs.1,000 was handed over to him for depositing the same in the Bank on the complainant's behalf. This plea has not been accepted by the two Courts. The numbers of currency notes had been recorded by the Magistrate and the same currency notes were recovered from the petitioner. No ill‑will has been alleged against the learned Magistrate; who supervised the raid. There are concurrent findings of fact by the Courts. There is no misreading of evidence. This petition has no force. The same is dismissed and the leave prayed for is refused. N.H.Q./N‑403/S Leave refused.