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: THE STATE
1989 P Cr
1989 P Cr. L J 2201
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Munir Khan, J
MUHAMMAD AFZAL‑‑Appellant
Versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 1981, decided on 3rd November, 1989.
Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)‑
‑‑‑S. 5(1)(c) & (2)‑‑Misconduct‑‑Charge against accused that he cultivated land attached with his bungalow through Baildars of Government Department and as such was guilty of misconduct punishable under S.5(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947‑‑No evidence of dishonest or fraudulent conversion of property by accused being available conviction and sentence was set aside.
Mian Ghulam Rasool for Appellant.
Sardar Khurshid for the State.
Date of hearing: 3rd November, 1984
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Senior Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Punjab, Lahore whereby he on 30‑11‑1980 convicted Muhammad Afzal appellant under section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to a fine of Rs.1,000 in default thereof to R.I. for 6 months.
2. The appellant, was an Overseer. Charge against him was that he cultivated land attached with his bungalow through Baildars of Irrigation Department and as such was guilty of misconduct punishable under section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
3. Since after hearing the learned counsel for the parties I feel inclined to accept the appeal and set aside the conviction on the ground that the allegations against the appellant admitted at its face value, his act would not constitute misconduct within the meaning of section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, so I need not set out facts in detail and enter into the merits of the case. I find that the allegations against the appellant were/are that he cultivated land attached with bungalow through Baildars of Irrigation Department and as such had committed an offence under section 5(1)(c) Prevention of Corruption Act. The relevant provision of law may be reproduced advantageously. Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read as follows:‑
"If he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do."
From the bare reading of the provisions reproduced above, it is very much obvious that it is the dishonest or fraudulent conversion for one's use that constitutes offence punishable under section 5(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption " Act. Since in the case in hand there is no evidence of dishonest or fraudulent conversion of property by the appellant for his and at the worst it appears to be m case of use simpliciter, the conviction of appellant is thus not maintainable.
4. For what has been stated above, the appeal is accepted and the appellant is acquitted of the charge.
M.Y.H./M‑1381/L Appeal allowed.