KHALID SAEED vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the petitioner's conviction for misappropriation of funds. The petitioner, an Octroi Clerk, was tried and convicted alongside a co-accused by the Senior Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Punjab, Lahore, for offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial court found the charges of misappropriation established and sentenced the petitioner to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000. Upon appeal, the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged the findings of the lower courts. After hearing the arguments presented by counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition. The Court held that there were no valid grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the High Court. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, thereby maintaining the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner.
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding criminal misappropriation?
- Is a conviction under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code sustainable when concurrent findings of guilt are established by lower courts?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-- This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment, dated 30-9-1984 passed by a learner Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby the order of the Senior Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Punjab, Lahore, dated 12-12-197' convicting the petitioner was upheld.
2. The petitioner, alongwith one Muhammad Maqbool, was posted a Octroi Clerk at Lahore- Gujranwala Octroi Post, G.T. Road, Lahore. HE was tried on the charge that he had, alongwith Muhammad Maqbool aforesaid, misappropriated Rs.17,500, while the latter had mis--appropriated Rs.1, 500 only.
3. The learned Senior Special Judge found that the charge leveled against the petitioner and his co- accused was established and, accordingly, convicted both the accused persons under section 409, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention Act II of 1947 sentencing them to undergo R.I. For a period of one year each. The petitioner was also ordered to pay a fine of Rs.20,000, in default whereof to undergo further R.I. For a period of six months, while the co-accused was imposed a fine of Rs.2,000. The appeal of the petitioner in the Lahore High Court against the said order of the learned Senior Special Judge having failed, hence this petition.
4. We have heard Mr. Qadeer Ahmad Siddiqi, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this petition and after having heard him at some length and considered his submissions we find that no good ground exists for interfering with the finding recorded and sentence imposed by the Senior Special Judge, Punjab, Lahore which was upheld by the Lahore High Court.
5. This petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed hereby.