Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN VS Respondent: STATE
1969 S C M R 824
1969 S C M R 824
Present : S. A. Rahman, A. C. J. and Fazle‑Akbar, J
MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE-‑Respondent
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 111 of 1963, decided on 24th May 1963.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 11th April 1963, in Criminal Appeal No. 715 of 1961).
Appeal to Supreme Court
---‑Criminal appeal‑Appreciation of evidence‑Supreme Court does not normally undertake.
Ghulam Mujaddad Mirza, Bar‑at‑Law Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ghulam Mujtaba, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 24th May 1963.
JUDGMENT
S. A. RAHMAN, A. C. J.‑The petitioner was a Girdawar Qanungo who stands convicted for having received illegal gratification in the sum of Rs. 20 from Jewan P. W. 5. The money was recovered by a raiding Magistrate under whose supervision a trap was laid for catching the petitioner soon after he had received the tainted money. The defence plea in the trial Court was that this money had been passed to him by Jewan as the price of ghee, which the petitioner had given to one, Gaman Lambardar, and which Gaman had sent to the accused through Jewan. This explanation however is belied by the independent testimony of the raiding Magistrate and a Naib Tehsildar who was present at the time of the recovery of the money, to the effect that the petitioner first admitted that he had received the money from Jewan in connection with the mutation which Jewan wanted to be sanctioned in his favour. In the next breath he came out with the ghee story. The Courts below were therefore justified in accepting Jewan's statement that the money had been passed as illegal gratification. The evidence given by the Magistrate and the Naib‑Tehsildar appears to be conclusive on the point. Even otherwise Jewan was no proved to have any motive to implicate the petitioner in the present case. No question other than one of the appreciation of the evidence on which the petitioner's conviction rests, has been agitated in this Court and it is not normally for this Court to undertake reappraisal of the evidence in the exercise of its criminal jurisdiction.
The petition is dismissed.
Leave refused.