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

SIDDIK versus THE STATE


The Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947), Section 5 (2) of the Pakistan Penal Code Section 409, a conviction case was registered against the accused in 1962 and the alleged embezzlement amounted to Rs 376 in 1973, for a long time on the accused. The trial was over and the rest of the sentence was awarded for losing the job. Rupees 1,000 in 9 months \ RI or changed to default six months \ RI [sentence]

1985 P Cr. L J 913

[Lahore]

Before Muhammad Munir Khan, J

SALAMAT SULTAN‑‑Appellant

versus

THE STATE‑‑Respondent

Criminal Appeal No.681 of 1973, heard on 29th January; 198S.

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑

‑‑‑S.409‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947), S.5(2)‑‑Sentence‑ Case registered against accused in 1962 and decided in 1973‑‑Amount allegedly embezzled was Rs.376.10‑‑Accused suffered agony of protracted trial and losing his job also‑‑Remaining sentence from 9 months' R.I. altered to fine of Rs.1,000 or in default six months' R.I. ‑‑[Sentence].

Ch. Manzoor Hussain for Appellant.

Sh. Afzal Hussain for the State.

Date of hearing: 29th January, 198S.

JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Lahore whereby he on 24‑10‑1973 convicted Salamat Sultan appellant under various sections and sentenced him to 9 months' R.I. on each count with the direction that the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The learned counsel on the instructions of Salamat Sultan appellant who is very much present in the Court has decided not to challenge the conviction. He has requested for leniency in the sentence. The learned counsel for the State has opposed this request.

3. In the peculiar circumstances, that the case was registered in the year 1962, decided in the year 1973 and the property allegedly embezzled was Rs.376.10 and that the appellant has not only suffered agony of protracted trial but has also lost his job, I feel inclined to A alter the remaining sentence of imprisonment to a fine of Rs.1,000 in default thereof six months' R.I. The appellant shall deposit the fine with the learned Special Judge (Central) Lahore within a month failing which the learned Special Judge shall issue warrants for his arrest and detention.

M. A. K. Order accordingly.

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
inheritance advocates near Mangal Sada 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.