Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

SAJJAD HUSSAIN BHATTI versus THE STATE


Pakistan Penal Code S 161 Anti-Corruption Act (11 of 1947), Section 5 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (V 1898), Section 342, the material part of the statement of the accused by the magistrate, was not placed before the accused, only after the raid. Under section 2342 of the investigation, the CCPC Court failed to properly examine the accused, the conviction and sentence were set aside and the case under Section 2342, CRPC, to record the statements of the accused. A remand for re-hearing was obtained from the stage of.

1985 P Cr. L J 903

[Lahore]

Before Muhammad Munir Khan, J

MUHAMMAD IQ BAL‑‑Appellant

versus

THE STATE‑‑Respondent

Criminal Appeal No. 484 of 1984, heard on 31st January, 198S.

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

--‑S‑161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947), S.5(2)‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.342‑‑Material portion of statement of accused, recorded by Magistrate, just after raid, not put to accused when examined under S.342, Cr.P.C.‑‑Court, held, failed to examine accused properly‑‑Conviction and sentence set aside and case remanded for retrial from stage of recording statement of accused under S.342, Cr.P.C

Talib H. Rizvi for Appellant.

Muhammad Zafar Yasin for the State.

Dates of hearing: 29th and 30th January, 198S.

JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge Central, Rawalpindi, whereby he on 3‑10‑1984 convicted Muhammad Iqbal appellant under section 161, P.P.C and section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Under section 161, P.P.C. he was sentenced to 2 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000, in default thereof 3 months' R.I. and under section 5 (2) 47 to 3 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000, in default thereof 3 months' R.I. with the direction that the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. Since after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I feel inclined to set aside the convictions and sentences of the appellant on account of legal infirmity in the trial, I need not set out the facts in detail and enter into the merit of the case. I find that just after the raid, the Magistrate recorded the statement of the accused Exh. P.E., wherein he stated:

To my mind, this piece of evidence should have been put to the appellant when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Strangely enough, the trial Court when examining the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. did not care to put this piece of evidence and as such has failed to examined the accused properly. That being the position, there is no option but to set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and send back the case for retrial from the stage of recording statement of the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. Order accordingly.

M. A. K. Case remanded

Find a Lawyer Near You

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

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
famous high court advocate from Abdul Hakim lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.