ABDUL AZIZ vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's revision petition in limine, thereby upholding his conviction and sentence under the Electricity Act, 1910. The petitioner had been convicted by the Senior Special Magistrate, WAPDA, Lahore, for an offense under Section 39-A of the Electricity Act, 1910, and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to two years' rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts erred in their findings of fact or application of law regarding the conviction. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution had successfully proven its case through the testimony of independent witnesses and that the legal aspects of the conviction were sound. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for interference, affirmed the conviction and sentence, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
- Does the testimony of independent witnesses sufficiently establish a charge under Section 39-A of the Electricity Act, 1910?
- Can a High Court dismiss a criminal revision petition in limine if the conviction is well-founded?
- Section 39-A, Electricity Act 1910
ORDER
' ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 2-7-1988.
2. The petitioner was charged under section 39-A of the Electricity Act, 1910. He was tried by the Senior Special Magistrate, WAPDA, Lahore, and was convicted thereunder and sentenced to three years' R. I. Vide judgment dated 4-10-1987. The appeal of the petitioner was partly allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, by his order dated 9-6-1988 in that his conviction under section 39-A was maintained but his sentence was reduced to two years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,5,000 was imposed upon him. His revision before the High Court was dismissed on 2-7-1988 in limine.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the judgments of the Courts below. As the record stands, we think the prosecution has been able to prove its case on factual grounds against the petitioner by producing independent witnesses. On legal aspect too no case has been made out. His conviction and sentence is well-found and it needs no I interference. The petition is thus dismissed,