MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's appeal against his conviction under section 165-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The petitioner, a Naib Qasid, was convicted of accepting a bribe with the promise of securing a favourable outcome in an appeal. The trial court and the High Court found him guilty based on the testimony of advocate witnesses, the Additional District Judge, and the petitioner's own confession. The core legal question concerned the sustainability of the conviction and the belated objection regarding the lack of sanction for prosecution. The Supreme Court held that the objection regarding sanction, not having been raised before the lower forums, could not be raised for the first time before the apex court. Furthermore, the petition was barred by limitation. The petition was accordingly dismissed as time-barred and on merits, laying down the principle that procedural objections not raised at earlier stages cannot be entertained at the leave to appeal stage.
- Can an objection regarding the absence of sanction for prosecution be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- Whether a petition filed beyond the period of limitation without a satisfactory explanation is liable to be dismissed?
- Is the testimony of judicial and advocate witnesses sufficient to maintain a conviction under anti-corruption laws?
- Section 165-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court Lahore dated 24th January 1989 whereby appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. ' The petitioner was tried for an offence under section 165-A, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and vide judgment of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption he was convicted to three years' R.I. Plus fine. On his appeal the conviction as well as sentence of fine were maintained but the sentence of imprisonment was reduced from three to two years' RI.The allegation against the petitioner was that he being Naib Qasid of the Court of Additional District Judge Bhakkar had accepted bribe of Rs,5,000. From a party in a case with the understanding that he would get his appeal accepted. There was evidence against him of two advocate witnesses as well as the testimony of the Additional District Judge himself before whom he admitted to have received that amount with the promise to show favour to the complainant. It was on the basis of this evidence and his own confession that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court and subsequently in appeal the sentence of imprisonment was reduced in consideration of his suffering for having been removed from service as well as having been in jail and not granted bail. Learned counsel attempted to argue before us that the petitioner was a Government employee and obtaining of sanction for prosecution in his case was necessary which was not secured in the present case. This objection has not been raised at any stage, neither before the trial Court nor before the High Court. It therefore cannot be allowed to be raised at this stage. The petition is even otherwise barred by two days and no satisfactory explanation has been furnished for the delay. The petition is therefore dismissed as time-barred as well as on merits.