KHAN MUHAMMAD vs The STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the petitioner's conviction for receiving illegal gratification. The petitioner, a police official, was convicted by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, receiving a sentence of one year imprisonment and a fine. The High Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to six months, granting the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Upon review, the Supreme Court identified a critical legal omission: the lower courts failed to consider the evidence presented by the defence. Specifically, defence witnesses testified that the disputed funds were intended for disbursement as Travelling Allowance (TA) at the police station, a claim not addressed in the impugned judgment. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the failure to evaluate defence evidence constitutes a material irregularity in the judicial process requiring appellate intervention.
- Does the failure of a trial court to consider defence evidence constitute sufficient grounds for granting leave to appeal?
- Is a conviction for illegal gratification sustainable if the defence evidence regarding the nature of the funds remains unexamined?
- Section 161, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J: --Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 16-10-1990.
2. The facts, in brief, are that on the report of Abdul Ghafoor Constable, a case was registered against the petitioner that he had received illegal gratification of Rs.400 from the complainant. No raid was conducted. No amount was recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner was convicted by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Act II of 1947, and sentenced to one year and fine of Rs.5,000. The High Court in appeal maintained the conviction and fine but reduced the imprisonment to six months with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
3. After going through the impugned judgment, we find that defence evidence has not been considered. The two witnesses produced by the defence stated that TA. Amount was sent to the concerned police station for disbursement.
Leave is granted.