ZIAUL HAQ vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Ziaul Haq against his conviction under sections 468 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, after the High Court maintained the said convictions while setting aside his conviction under section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question involved the propriety of interfering with concurrent findings of fact regarding impersonation in a Matriculation Examination form. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petition merely sought a re-appraisal of evidence, which is impermissible against concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts on a question of fact. The petition was accordingly dismissed as having no merit. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not re-appraise evidence to interfere with concurrent factual findings of lower courts where no legal infirmity is shown.
- Will the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence on a question of fact when there are concurrent findings by the courts below?
- Can a conviction under sections 468 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained in an impersonation case based on concurrent factual findings?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Ziaul Haq petitioner was convicted under sections 420, 468 and 471. P.P.C.
And section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. The allegation against him is that he sat in the Matriculation Examination and in the form submitted by him he pasted the photograph of his brother Ehtashamul Haq instead of his own photograph. This fact came to light and Ziaul Haq petitioner was tied for the aforementioned charges. He denied the allegation but the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore, relied upon the prosecution evidence and convicted him for the said offences. He filed an appeal before the High Court which accepted the same to the extent that it set aside the conviction and sentences under section 420, P.P.C. And section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, but maintained his conviction and sentences under sections 468 and 471, P.P.C. Vide the impugned judgment.
Hence the present petition.
3. We have gone through the impugned judgment and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. The contention raised by him amounts to a request for re-appraisal of the evidence.
Having considered the question we do not find it a fit case for re-appraisal of evidence on a question of fact on which the Courts below have given a concurrent finding.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed as having no merit.