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.
Criminal Petition No. 99 of 1983, decided on 20th April, 1983.
(From the judgment and order, dated 10th November, 1982 of the Lahore High Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 982 of 1978).
---Art. 185 (3)‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 161 & 323 read with Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5 (2)‑Conviction of petitioner for taking illegal gratification and for causing simple injuries to complainant found to be fully merited calling for no interference Such conviction of petitioner, a police official also entailing depart mental action‑Sentences of imprisonment of petitioner under S. 161 and under S. 323, however, in circumstances of case, ordered to run concurrently instead of consecutively as ordered by trial Court.
Ch. Hafeez Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
M. M. Saeed Baig, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Date of hearing : 20th April, 1983.
Petitioner Agha Abdul Rehman, an A. S. I. of Police, is aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, dated 10‑11‑1982, whereby his appeal from conviction and sentence under section 161, P. P. C. read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and section 323, P. P. C. recorded by the Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Lahore‑1, was dismissed.
2. The case against the petitioner was that he had sent for Munshi complainant when the latter was busy with the marriage of his son, and extorted from him Rs. 200. On the third day Munshi went to the dera of Muzaffar Iqbal and informed him, in the presence of Muhammad Riaz Cheema, of the incident, whereupon they took him to the police station in order to present an application to the S. H. O. The petitioner, who met them there, however, made an extra‑judicial confession before them, returned Rs. 50 which was at that time with him and promised to pay the remain ing amount later. The next morning i.e. on 11‑4‑1975, Munshi was sent for to appear at the police station through a constable, and when he went there he was given severe beating by the petitioner. Luckily he was rescued by Muzaffar 1qbal and Muhammad Riaz Cheema who happened to arrive there at that time. He was medically examined the same day, in the result of which nine simple injuries were found all over his body, caused by blunt weapon. Munshi filed an application containing these allegations the next day before Assistant Commissioner, Pasroor, who happened to be on a visit to the locality, whereupon the case was initiated against the petitioner.
3. The prosecution case was fully supported by Munshi complainant (P. W. 4), Muzaffar Iqbal (P. W. 5), Muhammad Riaz Cheema (P. W. 6) and the medical evidence. Mr. Muhammad Ayub, the then A. C. Pasroor (P. W. 3) also supported the fact that Munshi had complained to him in the matter by an application whereupon he had recorded the statements of the witnesses and forwarded the case to the Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot. The petitioner denied the allegations and stated that he bad been falsely implicated at the instance of Muzaffar 1qbal and Muhammad Riaz, P. Ws. who bad wanted to draw illegal benefits from him, to which he did not agree. He further stated that Munshi had received his injuries by fall from a rehra. He examined three witnesses in defence, who stated generally that the petitioner was an honest person and that Munshi was a worker of Muzaffar Iqbal and Muhammad Riaz Cheema who had sought illegal benefits from the petitioner to which the latter had not agreed. The Special Judge being satisfied that the case against the petitioner was proved, convicted and sentenced him to R. I. for one year plus a fine of Rs. 500 or in default in payment thereof to R. I. for three months under section 161, P. P. C. read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and to R.I. for six months under section 323, P. P. C. which sentences were to run consecu tively. With this conviction and the sentence the High Court had agreed.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner but feel satisfied that the conviction of the petitioner is fully merited and no interference is called for. However, on the question of the sentence, it is submitted that as the conviction would entail departmental action also there was a scope for reduction in the same. Mr. M. M. Saeed Baig, who is present in response to notice, has no objection if the two sentences be made to run concurrently. We accordingly convert this petition into appeal and order that the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. With this modification in the sentence, the appeal is dismissed.
S. Q. Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer