Pakistan Case Law
1983 SCMR 1225

MUHAMMAD ALI vs The STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1983 SCMR 1225
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Appeal No. 34/1974 Criminal Petition-for Leave to ,Appeal No. 164
Date1983-05-09
Judge(s)S. A. Nusrat and Mian Burhanuddin Khan
Authored byMian Burhanuddin Khan
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition was brought before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Bahawalpur, under Section 5(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core issue before the Court was whether the concurrent findings of guilt—based on the petitioner acquiring property and possessing assets disproportionate to his known and legitimate sources of income—were grounded in properly appraised evidence or vitiated by conjectures and surmises. The petitioner had been found in possession of a residential house and an unaccounted-for bank balance of Rs. 64,017 in the National Bank of Pakistan. The Supreme Court held that both courts below had thoroughly considered all relevant points and that the conviction was based on a proper appraisal of the evidence rather than mere speculation. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, affirming the petitioner's conviction and sentence.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether a public servant's inability to satisfactorily account for pecuniary resources and assets disproportionate to their known sources of income sustains a conviction under Section 5(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947?
  • Whether concurrent findings of guilt by lower courts based on proper appraisal of evidence regarding disproportionate assets warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Does possession of an unexplained bank balance and residential property constitute sufficient evidence to establish the charge of living beyond one's means under the anti-corruption law?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 5(c), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
anti-corruptiondisproportionate assetsliving beyond meansappraisal of evidenceconcurrent findingsPrevention of Corruption Act

ORDER

MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-This petition is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Bahawalpur dated 2-3-1974 whereby the accused/petitioner was sentenced to six months' R. I. And a fine of Rs. 500 in default, to further R. I.

For one month under section 5(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The petitioner filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence in the Lahore High Court which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment, dated 26-3-1983.

2. The main charge against the accused/petitioner was that he was living beyond his means and acquired property disproportionate to his legitimate income. It was found by the trial Court that the petitioner had a residential house and a balance of Rs. 64,017 in the National Bank of Pakistan which he could not satisfactorily account for. Both the Courts below have taken into consideration all the points relevant to the case. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioner contended that the conviction is not based on unimpeachable evidence; that the sentence passed on the accused/petitioner is based on conjectures and surmises. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel but we find no force in this petition. The conviction and sentence passed on the accused/petitioner is based on proper appraisal of the evidence. The petition is without any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

M. Z. M.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.