MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs The STATE
The petitioner, Muhammad Nawaz, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding his conviction for an offence under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 for demanding and accepting illegal gratification. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether leave to appeal should be granted for the mere reappraisal of evidence concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that it is not a fit case for grant of leave for reappraisal of evidence when the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the courts below overlooked any material portion of the record. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not re-appraise evidence in the absence of any misreading or non-reading of material evidence by the lower courts.
- Will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal solely for the reappraisal of evidence?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts be interfered with without showing that material evidence was overlooked?
- Section 161, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
ORDER
1. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Muhammad Nawaz, petitioner, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 17-12-1984, dismissing his Criminal Appeal (No. 357 of 1984).
2. The petitioner was tried for an offence under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for having demanded and obtained Rs. 500 as illegal gratification from Muhammad Ramzan, P.W.
2. He was found guilty by the trial Court and convicted for the said offence vide which he was sentenced 11 months' R.I. And a fine of Rs. 5,000 and in default to further 5 months' R.I. His appeal was dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned judgment.
3. Hence the present petition.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned judgment.
5. No question of law has been raised of the petitioner's counsel who only wants us to re-appraise the evidence and reverse the finding of fact arrived at by the to Courts below.
6. We do not however consider this to be a fit case for grant of leave merely for reappraisal of evidence specially when the petitioner's counsel has failed to point out that the Court below have overlooked any material portion of the evidence of the record.
7. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.