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 HUSSAIN 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) of the convicted candidate has been convicted by the trial court and excessive There is no reason not to. Interference with Supreme Court leave for appeal

1985 S C M R 1472

Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ

MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner

versus

THE STATE‑‑Respondent

Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 3 of 1985, decided on 19th May, 1985.

(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 10‑11‑1984, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1/83).

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 impugned‑‑Petitioner having been rightly convicted by trial Court and sentence not being excessive‑‑No ground made out for interference by Supreme Court‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing: 19th March, 1985.

ORDER

ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑

Muhammad Hussain petitioner was convicted under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He was sentenced to l years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.7,000 (in default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further 6 months' R.I.).

Feeling aggrieved he filed an appeal before the High Court which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 10‑11‑1984.

Still not feeling satisfied he has approached this Court for grant of leave to appeal.

2. The petition is barred by 7 days. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we condone the delay and proceed to hear the petition on merits. The petitioner's counsel has not been able to make out any ground warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, considering the evidence on the record we are of the view that the petitioner has been rightly convicted by the trial Court and the sentence is not excessive. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as being without any merit.

M. I. 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
tax advocates from More kunda 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.