SEKANDAR ALI vs The STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition filed by Sekandar Ali, who was convicted under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for demanding and accepting a bribe in his capacity as a Tehsildar. The petitioner was caught in a trap alongside his co-accused, with marked currency notes recovered from their possession. The core legal question addressed is whether the acquittal and evidence in a connected previous case can be used to influence the adjudication of the present distinct criminal charge. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the present case stands or fails on its own evidence and that the judgment or evidence from a separate previous transaction is inadmissible for determining guilt or innocence in the current matter. The petition was accordingly dismissed, reaffirming that the Supreme Court does not generally interfere with concurrent factual findings and appreciation of evidence by lower courts.
- Whether evidence and judgment from a connected previous case can be considered for the conviction or acquittal of an accused in a distinct criminal trial?
- Does the Supreme Court entertain contentions relating merely to the appreciation of evidence by the courts below?
- Section 161, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 114, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The petitioner ha; been convicted under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code on the allegation that he as Tehsildar asked for and received bribe for accepting rents for a particular jama from P. W. 1 Shamsul Haque. He was caught as the result of a trap attended among others by a Magistrate and the money paid as rent and as bribe were recovered from the possession of the petitioner and his co-accused Lal Mia respectively. Co-accused Lal Mia was petitioner's Paik. The identical marked currency notes were seized from their posses--sion and the petitioner and his co-accused were tried for offences under sections 161 and 161/114 of the Penal Code respectively and while the petitioner was convicted and sentenced the co---accused was acquitted.
2. The petitioner's defence was that he was falsely prosecuted at the instance of a college student P.
3. W. Shamsul Haque who had a grudge against the petitioner.
4. On behalf of the petitioner it has been contended that the High Court illegally omitted to consider the judgment of a con--nected previous case in which the petitioner was acquitted. The contention has a reference to the splitting up of the case against the petitioner at the direction of the High Court, and is evidently untenable. The present case against the petitioner stands or fails on its own evidence, and neither the evidence nor the judgment of the previous case concerning another transaction can be taken into consideration for the purpose of conviction or acquittal.
5. Other contentions on behalf of the petitioner related to appreciation of the evidence by the Courts below, and this Court does not entertain such contentions.
6. The application is, accordingly, dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- BASHIR AHMED Versus State 2022 YLRN 106