Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑22 of 1974, decided on 16th September 1974.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, dated the 27th of February 1974, in Criminal Appeal No. 208 of 1972).
‑‑ S. 161 read with Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2) & 4(i)‑Burden of proof‑Tainted money recovered from accused‑ Onus lay on accusal to explain how and what for accused got money.
Muhammad Hayat Junejo, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 16th September 1974.
.‑The petitioner was convicted and sentenced under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code, read with section 5(2) of Act II of 1947 by a Special Judge, and on appeal his conviction and sentence were maintained by the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan.
The allegation against the petitioner was that he had demanded and accepted bribe for supplying to the complainant a copy of the relevant entry in the Record‑of‑Rights in respect of Survey No. 271 owned by him. The complaint led to the arrangement of a trap party headed by a Magistrate and the tainted money was recovered from the "Johli" of the petitioner which fell down from a rickshaw as soon as he got off, and was picked up by the police party. The prosecution case was proved by the complainant, the Magistrate and S. I. P. Anti‑Corruption.
It was contended before us on behalf of the petitioner that the com plainant had deposed that the petitioner told the former that Rs. 180 was required as Government fees. It is true that the complainant said so but he also proceeded to state that after accepting the said sum of Rs. 180 the petitioner demanded Rs. 250 more for supplying the copy. Besides the tainted money having been recovered from the petitioner the onus was on him to explain how and what for he got the money. See section 4(i) o Act II of 1947.
No point of law has been placed before us nor any such point arises on the facts of the case.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer