Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 31 of 19135, decided on 26th May, 1985.

(Against the judgment /order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 17‑12‑1984, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 628 of 1984).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Re‑appraisal of evidence‑‑Concurrent finding on question of fact by Courts below‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Muhammad Muzaffar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing: 26th May, 1985.

‑Ziaul Haq petitioner was convicted under sections 420, 468 and 471. P.P.C. and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

2. The allegation against him is that he sat in the Matriculation Examination and in the form submitted by him he pasted the photograph of his brother Ehtashamul Haq instead of his own photograph. This fact came to light and Ziaul Haq petitioner was tied for the aforementioned charges. He denied the allegation but the learned Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Lahore, relied upon the prosecution evidence and convicted him for the said offences. He filed an appeal before the High Court which accepted the same to the extent that it set aside the conviction and sentences under section 420, P.P.C. and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, but maintained his conviction and sentences under sections 468 and 471, P.P.C. vide the impugned judgment.

Hence the present petition.

3. We have gone through the impugned judgment and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. The contention raised by him amounts to a request for re‑appraisal of the evidence.

Having considered the question we do not find it a fit case for re‑appraisal of evidence on a question of fact on which the Courts below have given a concurrent finding.

The petition is, therefore, dismissed as having no 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.