Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 87 of 1970, decided on 30th April 1970.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 7th April 1970, in Criminal Revision No. 368 of 1970).

-----S. 420‑Cheating‑Witness Evidence‑Corroboration‑Accused inducing complainant to pay money on promise of getting order, adversely passed against him, set aside and to get land allotted to him‑Money paid in presence of independent witnesses‑Contention that case being one relating to bribery, com plainant and witnesses were accomplices and should not have been believed without independent corroboration in material particulars Witnesses, held, witnessed only payment of money and cannot in circumstances be described as accomplices‑Conviction, held, based on reliable evidence and unexceptionable.

Mian Bashir Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing : 29th April 1970.

‑This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, in Criminal Revision No. 368 of 1970, dated the 7th April 1970. By this order the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

Shahmand father of Dilawar complainant, had applied for the allotment of land under the Horse Breeding Scheme. His applica tion was rejected. He filed an appeal against this order in the Court of Additional Commissioner, Multan. The prosecution case is that the petitioner approached Shahmand and induced him to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000 on the promise that the impugned order would be set aside and the land will be allotted to him. The matter was settled at Rs. 3,500 in the presence of Amir P. W. 2, Fazal P. W. 4 and Noor Muhammad P, W. 5 and the petitioner was given this amount in the presence of these persons. It is alleged that the appeal filed by Shahmand was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Multan. Thereupon, the comp lainant demanded the money from the petitioner who returned Rs. 500 to him in the presence of Arnir and Shahabala P. Ws. but failed to pay the balance of the amount. The petitioner was prosecuted under section 420, P. P. C. and Mr. Ghulam Ahmad Khan, Magistrate 1st Class, Sahiwal convicted and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment on the 2nd June 1969. The appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, on the 2nd April 1970. His revision as stated above was dismissed by the High Court on the 7th April 1970. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.

In support of the petition, Mian Bashir Zafar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that on the facts alleged by the prosecution, the case falls under sections 162 and 163, P. P. C. as the amount in question was paid to the petitioner for the purpose of having the appeal decided in favour of Shahmand. According to him, complainant Dilawar is an accomplice and his evidence should not have been accepted without independent corroboration in material particulars. He has also contended that the evidence of other witnesses should not have been accepted on this ground. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us. In the first place, this point was not urged before the Courts below. In any case, P. W. Amir, P. W. 4 Fazal and P. W. 5 Noor Muhammad cannot be described as accomplices. In their presence, only the money was paid and they being independent witnesses their evidence was rightly believed by the Courts below. According to the allegation, the money was also paid in the presence of P. W. 3 Shahabala. He has also deposed against the petitioner. In these circumstances, the conviction or the petitioner is based on reliable evidence and no exception can be taken to it. There is no force in the petition which is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.