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

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ versus STATE


Article 185 (3) of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), section 161 of the Prevention of Corruption (II of 1947), section 5 (2) did not challenge the sentence or sentence The High Court specifically re- Was not denied when the courts below filed cases. Neglected any material evidence on record
1985 S C M R 1373

Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner

versus

THE STATE‑‑Respondent

Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 75 of 1985, decided on 26th February, 1985.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 17‑12‑1984, in Cr. Appeal No. 357 of 1984).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)‑‑Conviction and sentence challenged‑‑No question of law raised‑‑Supreme Court declined to reappraise evidence specially when Courts below had not overlooked any material evidence on record.

Ataur Rehman, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 26th February, 1985.

ORDER

ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑

Muhammad Nawaz, petitioner, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 17‑12‑1984, dismissing his Criminal Appeal (No. 357 of 1984).

The petitioner was tried for an offence under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for having demanded and obtained Rs. 500 as illegal gratification from Muhammad Ramzan, P.W. 2. He was found guilty by the trial Court and convicted for the said offence vide which he was sentenced 11 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5,000 and in default to further 5 months' R.I. His appeal was dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned judgment.

Hence the present petition.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned judgment. No question of law has been raised of the petitioner's counsel who only wants us to re‑appraise the evidence and reverse the finding of fact arrived at by the two Courts below.

We do not however consider this to be a fit case for grant of leave merely for reappraisal of evidence specially when the petitioner's counsel has failed to point out that the Court below have overlooked any material portion of the evidence of the record.

The petition is, therefore, 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.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
advocate from Trinda Mohd Pannah 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.