Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 441 of 1985, decided on 8th February, 1986.

__S, 165‑A‑‑Case was remanded by High Court for fresh trial as the judge who convicted accused was not qualified to be appointed as special Judge. Anti‑Corruption on an earlier appeal‑‑Trial Court, instead of fresh trial recorded statements of two witnesses and .relying (7n evidence recorded by Special Judge other than unqualified Judge convicted accused‑--Trial Court, held, violated order of High Court‑‑Case remanded to Trial Court again in‑circumstances.

Muhammad Hussain Awan for Appellant.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing: 8th February, 1986.

This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Senior Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Punjab, Lahore, whereby he on 28‑5‑1985 convicted Muhammad Ashraf appellant, under section 165‑A, P.P.C. and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default thereof six months, R.I.

2. Since after hearing the learned counsel I feel inclined to set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant on account of legal infirmity in the trial, I need not set out the facts in detail and enter into the merits of the case. I find that the appellant was tried for offence under section 165‑A, P.P.C. and was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for one year by M. Anwar Sharik, Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption; Lahore vide his order dated 16‑8‑1980. He filed appeal which was accepted on the ground that Anwar Sharik was not qualified to be appointed as Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, and the case was remanded for fresh trial in accordance with law. Strangely enough, the learned Senior Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Lahore instead of fresh trial recorded the statement of two witnesses and while relying on the evidence recorded by Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption other than Anwar Sharik, has convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. This, to my mind, is violation of the order of the High Court where by the case was remanded to him for fresh trial in accordance with law. That being the position, there is no option but to set aside the judgment of the trial Court.

3. For what has been said above, the appeal is accepted and the case is sent back to Senior Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Lahore for de nova trial, in accordance with law.

H.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.