Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AFZAL VS Respondent: STATE
2000 S C M R 1572
2000 S C M R 1572
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Sh. Riaz Ahmed and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ
MUHAMMAD AFZAL---Petitioner
versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.481=L of 1999, decided on 16th November, 1999.
(On appeal against the order dated 6-8-1999 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Cr1.A. No.218 of 1994).
Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)--- -
----S. 5(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.161---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Contentions were that no independent evidence was brought on the record to connect the accused with the commission of the crime; that on the basis of bald statements of interested witnesses conviction could not have been recorded and that the accused had been involved in the case due to enmity---Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to accused to reappraise the evidence in the case---Sentence of accused being short, the same was also suspended and he was released on bail.
M. Sayeed Akhtar, Bar-at-Law, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 16th November, 1999.
ORDER
SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---This petition is barred by one day. The same is condoned.
2. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 6-8-1999 delivered by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby a criminal appeal filed by the petitioner assailing his conviction under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with section 161, P.P.C. was dismissed.
3, The facts of the prosecution case in brief are that on 15-6-1991 the complainant Nazar Muhammad submitted an application before the Director; Anti-Corruption alleging therein that the water had been sanctioned for the land, but' the same was not being provided for the last two years. The complainant further stated that he has been approaching petitioner Muhammad Afzal Patwari, who demanded Rs.18,000 as illegal gratification for providing the water. The complainant further stated in his application that after selling household articles and jewellry he collected Rs.18,000 and paid the same to the petitioner. On 29-4-1991 the petitioner announced a Warabandi, which subsequently transpired to be forged one. The complainant further submitted that he has been making various applications to the Executive Engineer (Irrigation) and the Superintending Engineer (Irrigation) and one such application was marked to the Deputy Collector, but the petitioner somehow or the other did not allow the inquiry to be conducted and, thus, the complainant was constrained to report the matter to the Anti-Corruption Authorities. The investigation was entrusted by the Director, Anti-Corruption to Mr. Fazal Ahmed Masood, Deputy Director for inquiry, who found the petitioner involved whereupon the petitioner was challaned and tried by a Special Judge and at the conclusion of the trial, he was found guilty and was, thus, convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a term of 10 months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000 or in default thereof to suffer further R.I. for 3 months., An appeal taken to the High Court was dismissed vide order impugned.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that the evidence in this case consists of the statements of the complainant, his uncle and his tenant. It was further argued that no independent evidence was brought on the record to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime and merely on the basis of bald statement of these witnesses the conviction could not have been recorded. According to the learned counsel, in fact the petitioner was involved due to enmity with Muhammad Akbar, the uncle of the complainant.
5. After careful consideration of all the facts of the case, we grant leave to appeal to the petitioner to reappraise the evidence in this case. The sentence of the petitioner is short one, therefore, the same is 8 suspended subject to the petitioner furnishing security in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
6. These are the reasons for the short order dated 16-11-1999 whereby the petitioner was directed to be released on bail.
N.H.Q./M-29/S Leave granted.