AMIR ALI vs The STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Amir Ali against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding his conviction under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the criminal misappropriation of a judicial file while serving as an Ahlmad. The core legal question concerned the sustainability of the conviction based on the appreciation of evidence by the courts below. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that no question of law requiring decision had been raised and declining to reappraise the evidence, as the concurrent findings of the lower courts were sound. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not ordinarily reappraise evidence in a criminal petition for leave to appeal where no substantial question of law is involved.
- Whether the Supreme Court will reappraise evidence in a criminal petition when no question of law is raised?
- Does the misappropriation of a judicial file by an Ahlmad constitute an offence under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 323, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 327, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Amir Ali, petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 2-10-1984, dismissing his Criminal Appeal (No. 440 of 1981) .
2. Amir Ali was an Ahlmad in the Court of Magistrate. He was tried and convicted of an offence under section 409, P.P.C. On the charge that he had criminally misappropriated a file relating to complaint case titled Bashir Ahmad v . Faiz Ahmad and others under sections 323, 327, 148 and 149, P.P.C. Which was in his custody. The prosecution produced 8 witnesses in support of its case. The accused petitioner denied his guilt and produced 4 witnesses in his defence. The trial Court however believed the prosecution evidence and convicted the accused and sentenced him to 15 months' R.I. He filed an appeal in the High Court against his conviction and sentence, which was partly accepted inasmuch as his remaining sentence of imprisonment was substituted by a fine oh Rs. 5,000 in default of payment of which he was ordered to undergo further 6 months' R.I.
3. We have heard the petitioner's counsel, he has not raised any question of law requiring decision by this Court. We have also gone through the judgments of the Court below we do not think a fit for reappraisal of evidence. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as having no merits. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.