ELAHI BAKHSH vs TEE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for offences under section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal questions involve challenging concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts and whether combining two similar instances of misappropriation and cheating in one trial constituted a fatal legal defect. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that there was no legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of fact and that the petitioner suffered no prejudice since the evidence regarding the second incident was not used for the conviction on a single count and the procedural objection was not properly raised before the lower forums. The key principle laid down is that procedural objections regarding joinder of charges must be pressed before lower forums and cannot invalidate a trial unless actual prejudice is demonstrated.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts can be interfered with without showing a legal infirmity?
- Does combining similar instances of misappropriation in one trial vitiate the proceedings if no prejudice is suffered by the accused?
- Can a procedural objection regarding the conduct of a trial be raised for the same time before the Supreme Court without being pressed before the lower forums?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD /MAL ZULLAH J.-This petition for leave to appeal has called in question the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for offences under section 420, P. P. C. And section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. Learned counsel tried to show that the findings of fact which are the basis of conviction are wrong. After hearing him on this aspect, we did not find any legal infirmity in concurrent findings of fact by the learned Courts below.
' Learned counsel also pointed out what he considered as a legal defect in the trial. There were two similar instances of misappropriation and cheating within a span of a fortnight which were combined in one trial. Learned counsel argued that there should have been two separate trials.
There is no force in this argument firstly because it being a question of procedure should have been pressed to its logical end before the lower forums, and second, the evidence regarding the second incident was not taken into account for convicting the petitioner on one count only. The conviction/sentence now impugned before us, it is conceded, is only on one count. The petitioner has not suffered any prejudice. And lastly learned counsel could not advance the argument by making reference to the law in question. His mere statement could not be accepted as sufficient to upheld the plea.
4. This petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.