MUHAMMAD KHURSHID vs The STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction and two-year rigorous imprisonment sentence for the offence of bribery under Section 165-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner offered a bribe of Rs. 250 to an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police to induce him to arrest an opponent of the petitioner's relative and to assist in a pending investigation. The petitioner denied the allegations, claiming false implication by the police at the behest of his enemies. Both the trial court and the High Court found the evidence against the petitioner credible and consistent. The Supreme Court examined the petitioner's contentions regarding evidentiary discrepancies and the alleged lack of motive for the bribe. Finding no legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the appreciation of evidence, and seeing no grounds to interfere with the sentence, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the appreciation of evidence in a bribery case?
- Does the offer of a bribe to a public servant to influence an investigation constitute an offence under Section 165-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 165-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Arms Ordinance No. XX of 1965
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 28-6-1977 of the Lahore High Court whereby criminal appeal of the petitioner from conviction and sentence of two year's rigorous imprisonment for offence under section 165-A, P. P. C. Was dismissed.
2. The prosecution case against the petitioner as summarised in the judgment of the trial Court is that "on 21-5-1968 at about 6-00 p.m. P. W. Narasab Khan, A. S. I. Police was present at Police Post Karore investigating a case under section 307, P. P. C. Etc. Against Ilahi Dad and others. P. W. Fateh Khan F. C. Muhammad Akbar F. C. P. W. Wazir Khan and Nazir Hussain Shah from the public were also present with him in the residential quarter of the A. S. I. At Police Post Karore. The accused Muhammad Khurshid in the meantime came to P. W. Narasab Khan and told him that he wanted to talk to him separately. P. W. Noiasab Khan, A. S. I. Replied that all the persons present there were his own men and therefore he should not have any hesitation in talking to him in their presence. The accused then requested Norasab Khan A. S. I. That he should help his relative Ilahi Dad aforementioned and arrest his opponent Nazir under the Arms Ordinance No. XX of 1965. He then offered a sum of Rs. 250 to Norasab Khan A. S. I. As a reward for that work. P. W. Norsab Khan A. S. I.
3. Told him that as a public servant he deemed it a sin to accept and pay bribe but the accused persisted in his request and even tried to put that money in his pocket. Norasab Khan A. S. I. Took that money in possession vide Memo. Exh. P. A. And prepared a complaint Exh. P. C. Against the accused. He also searched the person of the accused and a further sum of Rs. 40 along with some receipts were recovered from him which were taken into possession vide Memo. Exh. P. B. P. W.
4. Norasab Khan did not arrest the accused as he was not competent to investigate this case. He, therefore sent the complaint Exh. P. C. Along with the relevant record for registration of the case against the accused. P. W. Muhammad Mohsin Khan, Inspector investigated the case and challaned the accused."
5. In addition to Norasab Khan complainant, three wore witnesses, namely, Fateh Muhammad, Zulfiqar Ali and Wazir Ahmad in their depositions before the learned trial Court fully implicated the petitioner and supported the prosecution case against him.
6. The plea of the accused was of denial and false implication by the Police on the behest of his enemies. He also produced defence evidence.
7. Both the Courts below having carefully analysed the evidence, found the petitioner guilty. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there are several discrepancies in the evidence; that there was no occasion for the, petitioner to have offered bribe to Norasab P. W. ; and that in reality the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case by the Police on the asking of Kamal Khan D. W. 4.
8. The questions raised relate to the appreciation of evidence with regard to which, after hearing the learned counsel we have not bee able to find any infirmity justifying interference by this Court.
9. Learned counsel also urged for grant of leave on point of sentence, but keeping in view the circumstances of the case, we do not find this case fit for grant o leave on sentence either. The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.