ANTI-CORRUPTION CASES

[Prevention of Corruption Act II of 1947/Pakistan Criminal law Amendment Act XL of 1958 and Bribe. (Section 161, PPC) etc.]
Offences not specified in Schedule. Special Judge has no jurisdiction either to convict accused or to direct his prosecution if such offences are not specified in the Schedule. PLD 1965 Kar. 362 Shaukat Hussain.
Offences not in Schedule. Accused while being tried for Scheduled Offence can be tried for offence not in schedule. PLD 1962 Lah. 744 Muzaffar Hussain.
"Offences not in Schedule cannot be tried by a Special Judge except when another offence can be joined together with any of the scheduled offences, under section 234 to 238, Cr. P.C. PLD 1965 Lah. 266 Mukhtar Ahmad. PLD 1967 Kar. 768 (SC) = PLD 1971 SC 467 Ghulam Rasool.
Section 5 of Act II of 1947 is more comprehensive than Section 161, PPC. If the ingredients of the offence under section 161 are not satisfied, even then offence under section 5 of II of 1947, is made out when a Public Servant abuses his position. (DB) PLD 1955 Lah. 540 Abdul Hamid v. Crown.
Distinct offences. Offence under section 5 and one under section 161, Penal Code are distinct. Accused charged with Section 161, PPC read with section 5. Irregularity is curable under section 537, Cr. PC. PLD 1952 Bal. 1. Saadat Ali Khan.
Wrong orders passed in judicial or quasi-judicial functions cannot be made subject-matter of corruption or criminal misconduct. PLD 1966 Lah. 910. Ghulam Jilani.
Habitually accepts bribe. is to be proved either by a number of previous convictions under section 161, P.P.C or by proving number of instances in which bribe was accepted. Section 234, Cr. P.C is not applicable. PLD 1951 Lah. 11, Ghulam Muhammad v. Crown.
Abuse of Position as Public Servant. (Section 5 (I) (a). It is not necessary that a public servant should in fact have power to render service, it is sufficient that a public servant indicates that he is capable of rendering service for gratification, also held that under section 237, Cr. P.C accused charged under section 5 of Act II of 1947, can be punished for an offence under section 5 (I) (d) of the Act when no prejudice is caused to him. (SC) PLD 1956 SC 284 Muhammad Farooq.
Local Police does not figure anywhere and inquiry and investigation has to be done by Anti-corruption Establishment in matter of allegations of corruption against Public Servants. Rule 9 of Punjab Anti-corruption Rules 1985 provides that Anti-corruption Establishment Punjab only, has to proceed with inquiry or investigation against all officers/officials of all departments directly with on without obtaining permission from competent authority of concerned Department subject to jurisdiction of officers of Establishment. However with regard to judicial officers permission of Lahore High Court has to be obtained by Anti-corruption Establishment before it proceeds with inquiry or investigation against a judicial officer. Relevant policy D.O. letter No. 268/RHC dated 7.3.1975 issued by Registrar Lahore High Court is relevant. Cases with alleged Anti-corruption offences can be registered against Public Servants by Established under written orders of officers mentioned in Rule 8 of Punjab Anti-corruption Establishment Rules 1985 at Anti-corruption Establishment and not be inferior police officers or superior police officers at local police stations and obviously after adopting distinct method as provided in Punjab Anti-corruption Establishment Rules 1985. PLJ 1997 Lah 1121, Muhammad Sharif v. SHO, P.C. City Hafizabad.
Abuse of official position. Private dealing e.g. Sale of property etc. may amount to abuse of official position (DB) PLD 1954 Sindh 256 lnayat Hussain Shah v. Crown.
Misconduct under section 5 (2) of Act II of 1947. When there is dishonest or fraudulent misappropriation of property by public servant it is no bar to accused being charged under section 409, P.P.C (SC) 1969 SCMR 481 Zille Hussain Kazmi 1969 P.Cr.L.J. 1025.
Patwari making a false mutation entry cannot be convicted u/S. 5 (2) of Prevention Corruption Act, II of 1947, as he is obliged under the law to enter report (right or wrong) made to him and it was for the revenue officer to verify it. NLR 1989 Cr. 71 Mushtaq Ahmed.
Capable of doing favour. Bribe-giver believing that the accused was capable of doing the favour and giving bribe, held it is immaterial whether accused was in fact capable of doing the favour or not. 1975 P.Cr.LJ 1132 Muhammad Asghar.
Capable of doing favour. It is not necessary that the public servant must be capable of doing favour. It is enough for offence under section 161, P.P.C that the person giving bribe thinks that public Servant has opportunity to show him favour. PLD 1955 Bal. 6 Jafar Shah v. Crown (DB) PLD 1953 Dac. 240 Mukheshar Rehman v. Crown PLD 1959 Pesh. 166 (FC) = 1969 SCMR 766 Lutfur Rehman v. Crown 1969 P.Cr.L.J. 1558 (SC) = 1974 SCMR 457 Akhtar Hussain Khan.
Being not in a position to show favour to the complainant cannot be accepted as a defence for an offence u/S. 161, PPC as the acceptance of illegal gratification as a motive for rendering any service with any public servant is an offence. 1989 SCMR 1814. Muhammad Akhtar.
Government Servant receiving bribe not in a position to show favour or disfavour to the complainant in exercise of his judicial functions. Money paid to him, held, not paid as a motive or reward for doing any official act. No offence under sections 165-A, 109 PPC brought home to the accused. 1971 P.Cr.L.J. 123 Muhammad Aslam. AIR 1921 Cal. 344.
Receiver of bribe not in a position to show favour. Bribe offered to Sub-inspector under the belief that he was in a position to show favour to the (accused) complainant but actually the Sub-Inspector had already put the goods seized in custody of Court. Conviction under section 161 PPC held proper (SC) 1969 P.Cr.L.J. 1558 Lutfur Rehman v. Crown 1974 SCMR 199 Akhtar Hussain Khan.
Private person taking bribe for a public servant cannot be punished under Criminal Law Amendment Act by a Special Judge Anti-Corruption. PLD 1985 SC 225. Muhammad Rafiq PLD 1985 SC 351.
Receiver of bribe not directly concerned with the work to be done yet held guilty under section 161, PPC as he was to use his good offices to get the work done by a fellow clerk. (SC) 1974 SCMR 249 Rashid Ahmad.
Subordinate receiving money on direction from acquitted co-accused. Conviction cannot be maintained as case of co-accused not distinguishable from that of the convict. Appeal allowed. NLR 19884 Cr. 518. Atta Muhammad. 
Past favour. If reward is given for favour shown in the past believing that if no reward is given that act would go against him, held the offence falls under section 5 (2) of Act II of 1947. PLD 1962 Dac. 441 Ashit Kumar.
Favour already shown to the bribe-giver and mere statement that the tainted money was taken as loan only, held, accused guilty of obtaining illegal gratification. 1975 P Cr.L.J. 473 Zulfiqar Hussain.
Public Servant functus officio as to matter, in which bribe given. Held no offence under section 161, PPC is made out. 30 Cr.LJ 1055 = 36 Cr.L.J. 626 and 44 I C 369 followed. PLD 1956 Kar. 483 Fasih-ud-Din v. Crown PLD 1956 Kar. 531-PLD 1960 Pesh. 41 Said Nawaz Shah.
Exercise of personal influence. Actual exercise of personal influence with an official is not necessary. Promise to exercise is enough if illegal gratification is extracted on that account. PLD 1956 Lah. 1051. Muhammad Shafi v. Crown.
Official act. Expression "Official Acts" is to be given widest meaning. Telegraph Official undertaking to destroy original telegram before due date for illegal gratification covered by expression. (SC) PLD 1960 SC 50 Muhammad Zaheer Nadeem.
Official acts include bona fide and mala fide acts. Bribe taker receiving money by holding out threat of mala fide act, held is within mischief of Section 161, PPC (SC) PLD 1964 SC 266 Saeed Ahmad.
Not an official act. When a person accepts money as motive or reward for an act which cannot be said to be official, he is not guilty under section 161, Penal Code. 1950 Allahabad Law Journal 57 Bechey Lal (1883) 3 A. W. N. 179 Abdul Aziz v. Emp.
When act done in private capacity and not as a public servant, the accused cannot be punished under section 5(1)(d) of the said Act, PLD 1975 Kar. 239 Ganhwar.
Misconduct overcharging fee by a medical officer in a private medico legal case is not misconduct. (SC) PLD 1961 SC 224 Niaz Ahmad.
Attempt, demand for gratification made and refused amounts to attempt. Demand by itself not sufficient to constitute attempt. Accused demanding illegal gratification but subsequently revoking the demand. Held, no attempt. PLD 1958 Kar. 15 Illahi Bakhsh. OVER-Ruled by PLD 1959 SC 1 State v. Illahi Bakhsh.
Attempt-demanding illegal gratification constitutes attempt to commit the offence. No question of locus poenitentiae. (SC) PLD 1959 SC 1 State v. Illahi Bakhsh.
Drafting appeal. A rehabilitation clerk accepting Rs. 10/- for drafting grounds of appeal. Conduct held reprehensible but money obtained cannot be said to be obtained by corruption or illegal means. (FC) 1969 SCMR 843 Abdul Hadi v. Crown. 
Misappropriation. Mere entrustment of property to the accused and its shortage is not enough to establish guilt of dishonest misappropriation. 1968 P Cr.L.J. 358 Mustafa Shah.
Temporary misappropriation, sentence of fine-Expression "Gain derived" not to be equated with "amount misappropriated." PLD 1968 Lah. 1124 Ashfaq Ahmad.
Certification. No gain to the accused. Where a gun licence clerk informed an applicant that his license would not be renewed unless he invested Rs. 100/= in War Bonds, it was held that this amounted to an attempt to obtain a gratification within the meaning of section 161, Penal Code, 24 Pat. 138 K.B. Sen v. crown.
No wrongful gain or wrongful loss caused when advance of Government money was made to the staff. No criminal intention involved in the transaction. Accused acquitted. (SC) PLD 1971 SC 213 Siraj-ul-Islam.
Ingredients of offences of under sections 162 & 163, PPC. All that is necessary is that the giver of the money should have paid the money as a motive or reward for so inducing a public servant i.e. the person taking the money would either corrupt a public servant by illegal means or induce him by personal influence to show favour or disfavour to the giver of the money. (SC) PLD 1971 SC 467 Ghulam Rasul.
Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are distinct offences. (SC) PLD 1969 SC 278 Muhammad Sarwar. 
Misjoinder of charges. Two separate and independent cases of passing bribe to M and Z joined up together in one case. Prejudice caused to the accused. Irregularity not curable under section 537, Cr. P.C. Proceedings quashed. (SC) 1973 SCMR 542 Muhammad Abbas.
Charges under section 161, PPC and section 5 (2) of Act II of 1947, for the same transaction is authorised under Criminal Procedure Code; punishment however cannot be awarded more than once for same offence. (SC) 1974 SCMR 457 Akhtar Hassan Khan. 1974 SCMR 199.
Conviction under two offences i.e. under section 409, PPC and section 5 (4) of Act II of 1947, arising out of the same act is not sustainable under General Clauses Act. PLD 1959 Kar. 56 Ali Abbas.
Arrest without warrant. Police Officer below the rank of D.S.P (Now inspector) Investigating under orders of a Magistrate may arrest the accused without a warrant, as arrest is part of the investigation. PLD 1959 Pesh. 166 Ghani-ur-Rehman.
Investigation or inquiry of Scheduled Offences as mentioned in West Pakistan Anti-Corruption Ordinance, 1961 can only be conducted by Anti-Corruption Establishment and not by local police. Registration of case cannot be ordered by a magistrate but can be ordered by a deputy commissioner being ex-officio Deputy Director of the Establishment. PLJ 1996 Cr. C (Lah) 916, Saleem Hussain.
Investigation unauthorised. Investigation conducted by officer not authorised to do so does not vitiate the trial but is curable under section 537, Cr. PC. (SC) PLD 1968 SC 265 State v. Muhammad Hussain 1968 P.Cr.LJ 363 Mehr Khan (FC) PLD 1956 FC 106 Crown v. Mehr Ali.
Investigation partly unauthorised does not vitiate the trial unless accused is prejudiced. 1968 P Cr.L.J. 363 Mehr Khan.
Magistrate granting permission to investigate. Magistrates are not required to apply their minds to facts of case before ordering investigation. Permission to investigate not bad simply because the offence of accepting bribe had not yet been committed, (DB) PLD 1956 Kar. 139 Crown v. Ghulam Murtaza Khan.
Investigation by Police Officer below the rank of D.S.P. (Section 3 Police Officer below the rank of D.S.P. can investigate offences punishable under section 161 or 165, PPC with the orders of the Magistrate first Class PLD 1954 Bal. 1 Feroze-ud-Din v. Crown.
Note.- Vide: Anti-corruption Laws Amendment Act XII of 1965, word "Inspector" has been substituted for words "Deputy Superintendent" in section 5-A of Act II of 1947.
Investigation by S. I. Police without authorisation from Magistrate First Class. Held, trial is not vitiated. The irregularity is curable under section 537, Cr.P.C. unless it has caused prejudice for the accused. Case remanded for retrial on merits. (DB) PLD 1955 Lah. 667 Crown v. Nur Alam PLD 1958 Dac. 145 PLD 1960 Kar. 607 and 204 (Contra, PLD 1958 Kar. 643) PLD 1959 Kar. 714 PLD 1968 SC 265. State v. Muhammad Hussain.
Whether the act is done in discharge of official duty. The test is whether the act lies within the scope of his official duty. For example, to accept bribe or to pick pocket is not within the scope of official duty. (PC) PLD 1948 PC 273 Phanindra Chandera Neogy v. King.
Act even though not within duty of accused, yet when such public servant induces belief in the bribe-giver that he can do the favour, the accused is guilty u/S. 161, PPC and Section 5(2) of Act II of 1947. 1985 SCMR 867. Abdul Latif.
Protection to Public Servants ceasing to hold office is available when offence attributed relates to period when person concerned worked as a Public servant (DB) PLD 1975 Lah. 532. Ch. Zahur Elahi v. Director, Anti-Corruption.
Accused who is not a public servant cannot be convicted u/s. 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 1995 SCMR 387, Sikandar A. Karim.
Public Servant committing offence while in service can be prosecuted after retirement under section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, 1971 P.Cr.L.J. 959 Asghar Hussain.
Not a Public Servant when offence committed, held Act XL of 1958, not applicable. 1958 P.Cr.L.J. 1374 Muhammad Azhar.
Employee of Road Transport is not a public servant, u/s. 21 of PPC. PLJ 1990 Cr.C. (Lah.) 137. Muhammad Sadiq.
Contractor for auction appointed by Government is a public servant and hence triable by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption. NLR 1981 CrI. 209, Aqa S. Asghar Hussain.
Accused ceasing to be Public servant when sanction to prosecute was granted. Jurisdiction of the Court is not affected whether sanction was necessary or not. (SC) PLD 1962 SC 102 Ali Ahmad. (DB) PLD 1964 Lah. 253 State v. Raja Khan.
Ceasing to be public servant when cognizance of the offence taken by Special Judge, held, the Judge is competent to try the case if the offence was committed when the accused was a public servant. (D.B) NLR 1984 Cr. 248 State v. Muhammad Irshad.
Provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. & Sec. 6(5) of Pakistan Cr.Law Amendment Act XL of 1958 being repugnant to injunctions of Islam have ceased to have effect. PLD 1992 S.C. 72, Federation of Pakistan v. Zafar Awan Advocate.
Sanction for prosecution u/S. 197 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance by court is not required now. PLD 1992 S.C. 72 referred. PLD 1994 S.C. 281, Malik Shaukat Ali Dogar etc. v. Ghulam Qasim Khan Khakwani etc.
Sanction absence of is an irregularity not curable under section 537, Cr.P.C. PLD 1949 Bal. 17 Ghulam Rasul v. Crown. (DB) PLD 1958 Dac. 532 Muhammad Bahar-ud-Din.
Sanction for Prosecution order not exhibited in court to from part of record. Neither challan nor sanction order signed by the trial court. Appeal can be decided only on the basis of material on the record and not on document which is not part of the record. It cannot be said that the Trial Court acquired jurisdiction legally. PLJ 1994 Cr.C. (Kar.) 149, Habib-ur-Rehman 1994 P.Cr.L.J. 111.
Sanction Mechanical. Material facts of case not placed before sanctioning authority. Mechanical sanction is not in accordance with law, PLD 1954 Lah. 37 Tufail Muhammad v. Crown. PLD 1975 Lah. 1404 Muhammad Akhtar Shah.
Sanction not produced until conviction and appeal by accused although it was obtained from competent authority before cognizance of offence. Conviction set aside. (DB) PLD 1950 Dac. 7 Anwar Ali v. Crown.
Sanction; Personal inquiry before granting sanction for prosecution is not obligatory on the officer doing so. PLD 1956 Lah. 81 A.R. Masood Ali v. Crown.
Sanction by Federal Government was considered proper when the accused at the time of the commission of the offence was in the employment of the Federal Government though he was serving in connection with the affairs of the Provincial and he was covered by category No. 2 indicated in the definition of "appropriate Government", in Sec. 2(a) of Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958. 1993 SCMR 61, State v. Hafeez-ur-Rehman Najmi.
Sanction-incompetent. Rehabilitation Tehsildar appointed by Governor but sanction for prosecution given by Financial Commissioner, held, invalid (FC) PLD 1954 FC 248 Mahboob Khan v. Crown.
Sanction Form. No particular form for sanction is necessary. Charge described in words is enough even if section of the Penal Law is not stated. PLD 1952 Bal. 1. Saadat Ali Khan v. Crown (DB) PLD 1965 Quetta 1. State v. Riaz-ur-Rehman. 1968 P.Cr; LJ 675.
Sanction by authority competent to remove the Public Servant from office is valid sanction for prosecution (DB) PLD Sindh 230 Latif Ali Shah v. Crown.
Sanction-mind not applied. There is no valid sanction if the sanctioning authority does not apply its mind to the facts of the case nor it is valid approval if prosecution for a particular or specified offence is not approved PLD 1960 Kar. 607 Manzoor Elahi.
Sanction Invalid. Part of section which was applicable to the facts of the case not mentioned in the sanction, held, sanction was invalid. PLD 1958 Lah. 655 Muhammad Ramzan.
Sanction not necessary when the accused ceases to be a Public Servant at the time criminal case is instituted against him. PLD 1962 Lah. 689 = (SC) PLD 1962 SC 277 State v. Saeed Ahmad. (SC) PLD 1965 SC 139 Nazir Hussain Shah. (SC) 1974 SCMR 445 Muhammad Abbas.
Sanction-for Prosecution under Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act (XL of 1958) is necessary when the accused is in service but when the Public Servant is not in service at the time the court takes cognizance of the case, the sanction is not needed otherwise. (SC) 1974 SCMR 445 Muhammad Abbas.
Sanction-for person ceasing to be public Servant at the time of prosecution. Sanction is not necessary. PLD 1958 SC. (IND.) 308 SA Venkataraman.
Sanction-not necessary when the appointing and dismissing authority himself is the complainant. 1968 P.Cr.L.J. 316 Muhammad Iqbal.
When the accused ceases to be Public Servant at the time of trial. Public Servant committing offence of cheating under section 420, PPC cannot be said to be acting in discharge of his official duty. PLD 1963 Lahore 186 State v. Sikandar Khan.
When the accused ceases to be a public servant at the time of trial for offences under Act II of 1947. PLD 1962 SC 277 1965 SC 139 PLD 1967 SC 23 1972 SCMR 239 Ref. PLJ 1975 Kar. 198 Muhammad Mahmood Ahmad. SC PLD 1962 SC 102 1974 SCMR 445.
Sanction for prosecution is not necessary when the accused had ceased to be Public Servant at the time the cognizance of offence was taken. PLD 1976 Kar. 451 Muhammad Mahmood.
Sanction necessary when a Government Servant in discharge of official functions causes slight injury, without animosity, due to loss of temper. (Cr. P.C. Section 197). (SC) PLD 1960 SC (PAl.) 358. SMH. Rizvi v. A Salam etc.
When appeal against dismissal pending. Accused dismissed from service on 28.1.1961. Cognizance of case taken by Special Judge on 29.9.1961. Accused's appeal against dismissal pending during his period. Held accused deemed to be in service pending the disposal of his appeal and sanction necessary. (SC) PLD 1972 SC 271 Rashid Ahmad.
Sanction cannot become invalid subsequently. Sanction valid at the time of commencement of prosecution, cannot become invalid by subsequent change of the status of the accused necessitating sanction of different Governments, trial once begun cannot be held invalid by reason of supervening events. (DB) 1975 P.Cr.L.J. 834 (Kar.) Additional A.G. v. Malik Muhammad Hanif etc.
Public Servant, employee of West Pakistan Social Welfare Council held to be public servant. When no sanction obtained and the tribunal not competent to try the case, trial vitiated and accused acquitted. PLD 1972 Lah. 196 Zabtey Khan.
Employee of Utility Stores Corporation held to be a public servant. NLR 1984 Criminal 248 State v. Muhammad Irshad.
Sanction accused retired after departmental proceedings. Retirement order set aside and fresh inquiry ordered. Held, accused in service and trial without sanction was without jurisdiction. 1975 P.Cr.LJ 583 PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Kar.) 556 Ghulam Ali Jinnah.
Sanction to prosecute where re-employed. Accused a Public Servant at time of commission of offence and dismissed but re-employed in other Government Service before date of trial. Sanction necessary. 1975 P.Cr.L.J. 105 State v. Aziz Ahmad etc.
Re-employed by Government Accused ceasing to be Public Servant but re-employed by Government. Sanction for trial necessary. PLJ 1976 Kar. 198 Muhammad Mahmood Ahmad.
Sanction not obtained when petitioner retired compulsorily and his appeal pending. Deemed to be in service. Trial without sanction is without jurisdiction. PLD 1980 Cr.C. (Lah.) 418. Muhammad Yaqub.
Sanction for Prosecution not valid when mind not applied. Letter of head of department finding accused innocent, it amounts to refusal to accord sanction although it does not say so in many words. When the pre-requisite of the trial i.e. the sanction is not there, the accused is entitled to come direct to the High Court for quashment PLJ 1976 Lah. 150 Muhammad Akbar Shah.
Sanction for prosecution must reveal allegations with some accuracy and view of concerned authority on points as to what was gathered by him from facts necessitating trial. Where sanction found mechanical, conviction set aside. PLD 1982 Cr.C. (Q) 273. Ghulam Muhammad Shirazi.
Sanction-mind not applied: Argument without force when the sanctioning authority considering facts and other circumstances of the case alongwith the explanation of the accused. (SC 1973 SCMR 592 Faiz Alam.
Invalid sanction for Prosecution vitiates the trial. Sanction refused at first instance and later sanction granted under police advice by another person. Held sanction improper. (PLD 1976 Lah. 105 Muhammad Shafiq.
Sanction invalid when granted on instructions from superior officer when appointing authority itself not inclined to do so. PLD 1962 Kar. 648 Sher Muhammad.
At first sanction for prosecution refused by committee No. III later on Committee No. II reviewed the previous order of Committee No. III. Held, decisive step having already been taken by Committee No. III, Committee No. II could not revise earlier order, Sanction being illegal. Appeal allowed. PLJ 1994 Cr.C. (Kar.) 171, Muhammad Bashir 1994 P.Cr.LJ. 140.
Sanction for trial & time of commission of offence. Sanction should be obtained from competent person at the time of the commission of offence and not from the person competent at the time of making FIR 1978 P.Cr.L.J. 62 Muhammad Saleem.
Sanction not competent: Authority competent to remove Public Servant from office no longer competent to accord sanction. Proceedings initiated on such sanction held without jurisdiction. PLD 1969 Lah. 103 Abdullah Khan.
Sanction sought from wrong officer. Special Judge seeking sanction from wrong officer, not receiving reply within 60 days commencing trial on assumption that sanction was deemed to have been accorded, held, trial without jurisdiction for want of sanction. PLD Kar. 192 Muhammad Ishaq.
Sanction from Provincial Government instead of Central Government and also trial by Provincial Special Judge of a Central Government Employee when offence was committed. Trial vitiated. 1974 P.Cr.L.J. Note 150 P. 92 Muhammad Sarwar.
Subsequent sanction: When cognizance of offence taken sanction given by the person which had no authority to do so. Subsequent notification giving power of sanction held, is of no avail. (SC) PLD 1972 SC 271 Rashid Ahmad.
Sanction not accorded voluntarily: Sanction found not accorded voluntarily. Trial vitiated. PLJ 1976 Lah. 569 Muhammad Shafiq.
Sanction-Railway Employees Proper sanctioning authority is the Central Government. PLJ 1976 Lah. 569 Muhammad Shafiq.
Sanction-defective: Sanction order contemplating prosecution of a Public Servant and a businessman under section 420/120-B, PPC State counsel admitting that there was nothing against the businessman. Held, prosecution could not proceed against Public Servant only on the basis of sanctioning Order. (DB) 1968 P. Cr.LJ. 641 A.A.G. West Pakistan v. Aziz-ud-Din.
Sanction for offence under Section 408, PPC. Although Offence under section 408 PPC also falls under Section 5(1) (c) of Act II of 1947 yet a Public Servant can be proceeded against for an offence under section 408, PPC without sanction under the General Law. Note now Section 408, PPC is in the Schedule to the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958-XL of (1958). PLD 1952 Lah. 472.ÿCrown v. Babu Khan.
Sanction-to be given by authority under whom accused was working at the time of the commission of offence. PLD 1968 Lah. 181 Ghulam Qadir.
Sanction-Governor may grant sanction when the appointing authority is syndicate of university. 1968 P.Cr.L.J. 1945 S.M. Anwar.
Sanction-officiating A.S.I. Superintendent of Police and not the D.I.G. is the sanctioning authority, (SC) PLD 1965 SC 50 Qamar Ali.
Sanction-given after examination of substance of case only. Held, not invalid PLD 1957 Lah. 290 Ghulam Jilani.
Sanction-explanation of accused is not necessary before giving sanction (SC) 1970 SCMR 779 Muhammad Wazir.
Sanction objection to validity different from one raised at trial court, not to be raised for the first time in appeal before Federal Court, (FC) 1970 SCMR 208 Siraj Din.
Sanction-Inadmissibility of sanction order not raised at trial cannot be raised at appellate stage. Presumption about Public document is that it was duly executed. 1970 P.Cr.L.J. 1189 Abdul Khaliq.
Sanction necessary when appeal from dismissal pending. Accused dismissed from service and cognizance of case taken by Special Judge when appeal from dismissal pending. Held, accused deemed to be in service pending disposal of his appeal and sanction for prosecution necessary. (SC) PLD 1972 SC 271, Rashid Ahmad.
Sanction for prosecution refused twice by delegatees, held, delegator could not exercise the power as it as exhausted already. NLR 1981 Cr. 163, Shabir Ahmad Khan.
Locus Poenitentiae sanction for prosecution. Earlier order for departmental inquiry given effect to and an inquiry officer appointed. Decisive step taken. No locus poentientiate left in Govt. to revise such order and accord sanction for prosecution of Govt. servant. 1968 SCMR 367 and State v. Muhammad Ismail, 1980 SCMR 268.
Sanction refused by competent authority by letter of refusal received after 2 months and 3 days. Proceedings quashed as not competent NLR 1982 Cr. 451 Qamar-ur-Din.
Sanction once refused cannot be revised or reviewed. PLJ 1980 Cr.C. (Lah.) 165 Mukhtar Ahmad.
Sanction refused by the appropriate authority, the Special Judge discharged the accused. Accused resigned and ceased to be public servant. High Court ordered trial by Special Judge that sanction was not necessary as the accused had ceased to be a Public Servant. Supreme Court held that the special Judge had jurisdiction to try only public's servants and other persons who are connected with the case as abettors or conspirators etc. An accused person who at the time of the commission of the offence was a public servant does not lose the protection provided under section 6(6) Pak. Cr.ÿLaw Amendment Act, 1958 that previous sanction of the appropriate Government will be required to prosecute him. (SC) 1972 SCMR 239 Dr. Abdul Fateh Ursani Awan. (Case heard on 20.8.1970. see also PLD 1965 SC 139 when sanction not necessary) OVERRULED BY 1974 SCMR 445 Muhammad Abbas.
Presumption is not to be drawn until explanation of the accused and evidence if any produced by him. Possibility of explanation of accused being true benefit to go the accused. PLD 1963 Kar. 582 Ghulam Ali.
Presumption under section 4 of the Act II of 1947. It is necessary for the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt before presumption can be drawn. The burden of proof on the accused is not so heavy as burden is on the prosecution. PLD 1954 Sindh 126 Crown v. Amjad Ali.
Presumption that gratification was received for criminal purpose is to be made on the basis of adequate evidence. (SC) PLD 1964 SC 428 Abdul Khaliq.
Passing of currency notes to the accused. Guilt of the accused is presumed. Accused offering plausible explanation supported by witnesses. Onus on accused discharged. Failure by prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal. Solitary statement of decoy witness needs corroboration. PLJ 1973 Lah. 205 Allah Diwaya 1973 P.Cr.L.J. 1036.
Onus on accused to explain how and for what accused got tainted money recovered from him. (SC) 1975 SCMR 164 Ghulam Nabi.
Explanation not reasonable. Explanation given to the Raiding Magistrate not reasonable. Conviction upheld. 1975 P.Cr.L.J. 473 Zulfiqar Hussain. 1975 P.Cr.LJ. 179 Shahid Ali.
Explanation of the accused, if it be plausible and can reasonably be true, he should be given benefit of doubt and acquitted. He need not prove his innocence. PLD 1971 Lah. 799 Muhammad Saleem.
The explanation of the accused at least as reasonable and probable as alternative version of the prosecution. Conclusion of guilty in circumstances not the only or most reasonable conclusion. Accused acquitted. (SC) 1971 SCMR 6 Abdul Rashid 1975 P.Cr.L.J. 1207 Gulzar Ahmad.
No explanation given by accused to Raiding Magistrate, shows that the defence story was worked out subsequently. (SC) 1971 SCMR 105 Ghulam Ali.
Doctor's explanation for recovery of tainted money not satisfactory. Complainant had no motive to falsely implicate the accused. Conviction maintained. (SC) 1971 SCMR 35 Ghulam Hussain.
Doctors explanation that he received the tainted money in lieu o the debt owed to him by the complainant, together with other evidence in defence. Possibility that the money was received in lieu of debt existing, held accused entitled to acquittal. 1971 SCMR 35 Ghulam Hussain.
Plea of the accused that the money received was in satisfaction of the loan taken by the complainant from the accused and not as a bribe was found to be possible. Accused acquitted. 1994 P.Cr.L.J. 120, Ghulam Rasul.
Statements of accused in a corruption case in a trap-raid were held to be not admissible and the effect of sections 164, 364 and 533, Cr.P.C. was examined by a Full Bench in Ghulam Abbas v. The State (PLD 1968 Lah. 101, but it has been overruled by the Supreme Court holding that such statements are admissible. (SC) PLD 1969 SC 278 Muhammad Sarwar. (SC) 1971 SCMR 817 State v. Ghulam Abbas, State v. Rasul Bakhsh.
Statement of accused to Magistrate at the time of laying the trap, where and when not admissible at trial. (FB) PLD 1968 Lah. 101 1968 P.Cr.L.J 17 Ghulam Abbas. OVERRULES by 1971 SCMR 817 State v. Ghulam Abbas and PLD 1969 SC 278. Muhammad Sarwar.
Statement before Raiding Magistrate taken into consideration for raising presumption u/S. 4 of P.C.A. 1947. PLJ 1984 Cr.C. (Lah.) 499. Hafazat Ali Shah.
Trap Case-talk between complainant and accused not overheard by Raiding Inspector or Magistrate. Acceptance of money in circumstances cannot be inferred as illegal gratification 1973 P.Cr.L.J. 833 Ijaz Ahmad, also see 1973 P.Cr.L.J 313 Maqsood Ahmad. PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Lah.) 245 Muhammad Sadiq, 1975 P.Cr.L.J. 1286.
Not only payment of bribe money to the accused is to be seen but also conversation between the complainant and the accused has to be heard by the members of the raiding party, in cases u/S. 161 PPC when allegation of taking bribe is made. 1996 SCMR 181, Muhammad Ashraf.
Neither passing of money seen nor conversation heard between the accused and complaint by the raiding party. The defence version adopted by the accused at the very out set supported by the prosecution. Accused acquitted. PLR 1997 Lah. 683, Abdus Sattar.
Over-hearing of conversation between complainant and accused by Raiding Magistrate is not requirement of law. PLD 1992 Lah. 45. Allah Ditta.
Neither talk heard nor passing of money seen, in a corruption trap case neither the Raiding Magistrate saw the passing of tainted money nor be heard the talk. Planting of tainted money not ruled out accused acquitted, 1977 P.Cr.LJ 78. Saghir Hussain. 1978 P.Cr.LJ 257 Muhammad Ishaq.
No conversation heard or passing of money seen between the complainant and the accused, by Magistrate and the police officer. Conviction set aside. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lah.) 415, Shahzad Hussain; PLD 1996 Lah. 271, Muhammad Zafar.
Neither conversation heard nor saw money being passed by the complainant to the accused. Complainant biased against the accused, his evidence required corroboration. Accused acquitted. 1996 SCMR 181, Muhammad Ashraf.
Passing of bribe money not seen and no conversation between the accused and the complainant heard by the raiding Magistrate and the police officer. Held the prosecution failed to prove its case. PLJ 1996 Cr.C (Lah.) 263, Muhammad Zafar PLD 1996 Lah. 271.
Magistrate and police officer neither heard the talk between the accused and the complainant party nor saw the passing of tainted money. Accused acquitted on benefit of doubt. 1994 P.Cr.LJ 975, Nazir Hussain.
Passing of money not seen nor talk heard by the raiding Magistrate or police officer. Held, case not proved beyond reasonable doubt. NLR 1984 Cr. 367. Muhammad Ali. NLR 1983 Cr. 616. Khurshed Ahmed Zaid.
Trap case-Conversation between complainant and accused not overheard, immediately before acceptance of tainted money by the accused, by any of the other prosecution witnesses. Prosecution case doubtful. Accused acquitted. 1973 P.Cr.L.J 313 Maqsood.
Associated for Magistrate on police-raids is condemned by the Highest Courts. The law does not provide that the raid should be supervised by Magistrates. PLD 1992 Kar. 39. Abdul Razak Rathore. PLD 1971 Lah. 799, Muhammad Saleem, PLD 1956 Kar. 273-A, Mirza Zada, 52 Cr.L.J. 1116. M.C. Mitra ref.
Raiding Magistrate not over-hearing the talk between the accused and the bribe-giver when money was passed to the accused. Money recovered one hour after house search. Held, prosecution case doubtful. NLR 1984 Cr. 262. Abdul Rashid.
Raiding party neither hearing nor seeing what transpired between parties when tainted money was passed to accused. Only complainant's statement against the accused. Complainant had a motive against the accused. Benefit of doubt given to the accused, 1976 P.Cr.L.J. 273 Muhammad Ramzan. 1978 P.Cr.L.J. 247 Abdur Rehman. PLD 1988 Lah. 640. Arshad Mirza.
What transpired between complainant and accused not known. Case not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accused acquitted, 1975 P.Cr.LJ 1286 Muhammad Sadiq. PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Lah.) 245 1975 P.Cr.LJ 1267 Muhammad Usman.
Tainted money recovered in presence of Magistrate. Onus lies on accused to justify possession of such money or as to how he received it. (SC) PLJ 1978 SC 194. Muhammad Sadiq.
Passing of money not seen. PWs. holding accused by arms and his hand containing tainted money. Raiding Magistrate and Inspector not witnessing passing of money. Possibility of money being foisted on accused not ruled out. Accused acquitted. 1975 P.Cr.LJ 456 (Kar.) Muhammad Luqman.
Conversation not over heard. Recovery of tainted money from the accused and absence of enmity of witnesses held enough corroboration of complainant though corroboration of complainant though conversation between the accused and the complainant not over heard. 1975 P.Cr.LJ 526 (Kar.) Naseer Ahmad.
Conversation between the complaint and accused not heard nor tainted money seen passing in the presence of the witnesses yet leave to appeal was dismissed as the complaint and the other witnesses had no motive to falsely implicate the petitioner and the tainted money was taken out by the accused from his pocket in the presence of the Magistrate conducting the raid. 1998 SCMR 586, Malik Umar Hayat.
Trap-Talk not heard. Neither Magistrate nor Police Officer hearing or seeing what passed between parties i.e., the accused and the complainant when alleged bribe paid. Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted. 1974 P.Cr.LJ Abdul Aziz PLJ 1974 Cr. C. (Lah.) 52 1975 P.Cr.LJ 1986 Muhammad Sadiq.
Magistrate not seeing passing of money nor hearing conversation between the accused and the person passing the money. Possibility that the complainant might have talked about something else while passing money cannot be excluded. Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted. 1978 P.Cr.LJ 885 Manzoor Hussain Shah.
Defence plea raised immediately after raid that the appellant had received money for the purchase of electric meter appearing probable accepted and acquittal ordered. NLR 1988 Cr. 406. Muhammad Iqbal.
Trap-case. Magistrate neither hearing conversation nor seeing passing of money Complainant inimical to the accused. Conviction set aside. 1972 P.Cr.LJ 836 Muhammad Bashir.
Decoy witness in a trap case has never been considered to be a reliable witness for conviction of accused. Court should look for independent corroboration. 1994 P.Cr.LJ 292, Muhammad Rafiq.
Trap-case Magistrate's supervision is not necessary. Statement recorded by Naib Tehsildar without observing the formalities of Section 164, Cr.P.C. held, are not inadmissible in evidence. PLD 1971 Lah. 799 Muhammad Saleem. 1973  P.Cr.LJ 28 Habib-ur-Rehman.
No reason for raiding party to falsely implicate accused: Tainted money thrown on the ground in presence of witnesses, conviction maintained. 1985 SCMR 867 Muhammad Latif.
Mere recovery of tainted money is not enough to sustain conviction, when neither conversation was heard nor the passing of money was seen between the complainant and the accused, by the Pws. Appeal allowed. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lah.) 295, Abdul Hameed.
Mere recovery of tainted money is not enough to hold the accused guilty when appellant gave reasonable explanation supported by defence. No witness heard the conversation between the complainant and the appellant. Appellant acquitted for offence u/S. 161, PPC & Sec. 5(2) PCA 1947. PLJ 1996 Cr.C (Kar.) 1458, Shabbir Ahmed.
Mere recovery of tainted money in absence of evidence to the effect that the amount was received by the accused as bribe is not enough to prove charge u/S. 5(2). Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lah.) 272, Nazir Ahmad.
Mere recovery of tainted money from accused's possession is not enough to fix him with guilt of having received it as illegal gratification unless it can be shown to have been actually accepted with the knowledge that it was illegal gratification. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Kar.) 929; Ghulam Rasul etc.
No proof that the money was passed to be accused; mere recovery of the tainted money from the accused is not enough to prove charge u/s. 161 PPC read with sec. 5 of Act II of 1947. PLJ 1994 Cr.C. (Lah.) 404, Mirza Fayyaz Beg.
Mere recovery of currency note; whose number noted on a separate paper; from the pocket of the accused and trap party placed the accused under arrest. This fact alone does not prove that the note had been given to the accused as illegal gratification. L.T. hector Tomas Huntely v. Emp. 1944 F.C. 66; Emp. v. Anwar Ali AIR 1948 Lah. 27 Ref. 20 DLR 407 Abdul Hayee. 1968 P.Cr.LJ 723 1973 P.Cr.LJ 1036, Allah Dawaya. 1977 P.Cr.LJ 694 Nazakat Raza.
Conscious acceptance of money is to be proved, mere demand of illegal gratification is not an essential ingredient of offence. 20 DLR 587 Abdul Kader.
Trap-case; Burden of proof. Tainted money recovered from the accused. Held, onus thereafter shifted on the accused to explain how he received the money. (SC) 1977 SCMR 503. Muhammad Siddiq.
Trap-Case u/S. 161 PPC & 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act II of 1947. It is not necessary in a raid (trap) case to look for direct evidence of criminal conversation between the accused and the decoy witness provided that the Magistrate who supervised the said raid was satisfied that he had not been cheated, either by the decoy witness/complainant or by the accused. PLD 1992 S.C. 254, Muhammad Aslam.
Trao-Case money recovered from fell clerk. Tainted money recovered from Accused's fellow clerk, though not officially concerned with informer's case yet money paid for use of his good offices with accused petitioner. Requirement of law under section 161, PPC and section 5(2) of Act II of 1947 held, satisfied, (SC) 1974 SCMR 249 Rashid Ahmad.
Money lying on the ground, held not to have been recovered from the accused. PLJ 1982 Cr.C. (Kar.) 185. Ayaz Hussain.
Tainted money pricked up from ground by raiding party. Conversation between bribe-giver and receiver not heard nor passing of money seen, held complainant might have made an excuse to give money which he had thrown away. PLJ 1990 Cr.C. (Lah.) 137: Muhammad Sadiq.
Tainted money not produced in Court nor it was his own to the complaint, Mashir or Magistrate. Held, presumption would be that the said amount did not exist and hence not recovered from the appellant. Appeal accepted. PLJ 1994 Cr.C. (Kar. ) 149, Habib-ur-Rehman 1994 P.Cr.L.J. 111.
Notes passed in a folded paper. Possibility that the accused took them thinking that the complainant had given him some documents. Benefit of doubt given to the accused. 1975 P.Cr.L.J. 1267. Muhammad Usman.
Decoy and trap. Practice of talking Magistrate or other judicial officers on expeditions or missions of laying traps for offenders to give bribe has been condemned by the highest courts. In this case the Police Inspector admitted both in his First Information Report and in his evidence on oath that he had agreed to accept the bribe but he alleged that he did so that the offence of appellant i.e., of giving, bribe may be detected. Held, that the Police Officer was guilty of offence under section 161, PPC. AIR 1936 P.C. 253 Ref. PLD 1956 Kar. 273 Mirzazad v. Crown.
Magistrate introducing himself as the brother of the complainant, held, lost his supervisory status and reduced himself to the status of a decoy witness. The action of the Magistrate has caused prejudice to the appellant in conducting his defence at the trial. Appeal accepted. PLJ 1995 Cr.C. (Lah.) 275 Mohammad Akram Sajjad.
Trap-Case-Magistrate becoming a decoy and passing money to the accused as brother of complaint. Evidence not relied upon. Accused acquitted. 1968 P.Cr.L.J. 1945 S.M. Anwar.
Complaint under Section 161, PPC read with section 5 of Act II of 1947. Inquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C. held in excess of jurisdiction.
Special Judge to address appropriate Government for sanction and thereafter to proceed with the case or drop it. PLD 1962 Kar. 738. Ain-ud-Din.
Complaint. Special Judge can take cognizance upon receiving complaint of facts constituting a schedule offence or upon a report by any Police Officer. Not bound to accept final report of Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption. 1968 P.Cr.LJ 471 Badr-ud-Din.
Solitary statement of complaint not corroborated by any evidence, conviction set aside, 1969 P.Cr.LJ 593, Ghulam Hussain. 1969 P.Cr.LJ 1408 Muhammad Yousaf. (SC) 1969 SCMR 379 Muhammad Bachal. 1969 P.Cr.LJ 1011.
Accomplice. Agent Provocateur passing money to another is no more than an accomplice. Testimony of such witness is not acceptable without independent corroboration. 1973 P.Cr.LJ 1036. Allah Diwaya.
Bribe giver not an accomplice. Unwilling bribe-giver is not in position of an accomplice. Slightest corroboration is sufficient to render such person's evidence reliable. Marked currency notes recovered from Accused's drawers amounts to corroboration of Testimony of bribe giver. (SC) 1974 SCMR 58 Ubedullah: 1074 P.Cr.LJ 266 Muhammad Juman (SC) 1970 SCMR 770 Rashid Ahmad, PLD 1963 Lah. 250 Qamar Ali Shah.
Accomplice: Bribe giver is an accomplice. Conviction based on solitary statement to bribe giver, uncorroborated by any other evidence set aside. 1970 P.Cr.LJ 675 Muhammad Ramzan: 1971 P.Cr.LJ 723 Muhammad Ahmad Khan; PLD 1971 Kar. 78 PLD 1959 Kar. 714 Jalal Khan.
Decoy witness held an accomplice a Section 5 and as such not to be relied on without corroboration. PLD 1967 Lah. 199. Din Muhammad. 
Decoy not accomplice. Accomplice is one who in fact participates in crime. Decoy to catch bribe taker or "conspirator" repenting and becoming an informer, held is not an accomplice. No corroboration of such decoy or informer is necessary. (SC) PLD 1962 SC 320 Zafar Ali. PLD 1963 Lah. 250 Qamar Ali. 
Bribe giver an abettor, notwithstanding that bribe was paid under threats. Section 165-B, Penal Code is only a special exemption in favour of such abettor absolving him of such liability. (SC) PLD 1964 SC 266 Saeed Ahmad.
Abettor. Person receiving precuniary advantage is abettor of offence by public servant. Pecuniary advantage itself alongwith other circumstances is proof of abetment. (FC) PLD 1956 FC 27 Muhammad Ashraf v. Crown.
Evidence of accomplice in a corruption case cannot be accepted without independent corroboration. (SC) 1969 P.Cr.LJ 1124 Mehr-un-Nisa v. Crown.
Decoy witness. His evidence cannot be acted upon unless corroborated. NLR 1984 Cr. 394. Hafazat Ali.
Accomplice. Evidence of accomplice cannot be accepted without corroboration. FC 1969 SCMR 574 Mehr-un-Nisa v. Crown; 1969 P. Cr. LJ 1124 = 1973 P. Cr. LJ 984 Mehr Khan 1973 P Cr. LJ 833 Ijaz Ahmad.
Bribe given under compulsion. Bribe giver is not particeps Crime is in respect of crime when bribe is given under compulsion. (SC) PLD 1963 SC 38 Noor Muhammad.
Trap-Bribe giver. Trap laid to catch bribe taker. Held bribe giver is not an accomplice. Weight to be attached to evidence of such person depends on facts of each case. PLD 1963 Lah. 250 Qamar Ali PLJ 1984 Cr. C. (Lah.) 499. Hafazat Ali Shah.
Approver's evidence not corroborated by independent evidence. Not relied in a corruption case. (DB) PLD 1972 Kar. 292 Noor Bibi Agha.
Confession of co-accused without corroboration that he accepted bribe for the accused, not relied upon 1972 P. Cr. LJ 189 Iftikhar Ali Razi.
Without jurisdiction. Proceedings under Sections 406 and 420, tried by Magistrate and not a Special Judge. Offence alleged to have been committed by a Government Servant in the discharge of his Public duties. No prior sanction obtained. Proceedings quashed as without jurisdiction. 1970 P. Cr. LJ 1181. Mushtaq Ahmad. Muhammad Ramzan.
Jurisdiction. Offence under Act II of 1947 exclusively triable by Special Judge. PLD 1970 Q. 49 State v. Mir Ahmed Shah.
Special Judge with less three years experience is not qualified for appointment as Special Judge. Position does not change because of notification (SC) PLD 1964 SC 482 Abdul Khaliq.
Special Judge Anti-corruption appointed for Lahore-Division only while case belonged to Sialkot District in Gujranwala Division, held, Special judge Lahore had no jurisdiction to record the evidence. Case remanded to Special Judge Gujranwala Division for recording the evidence afresh and to proceed in accordance with law. 1994 P. Cr. LJ 18, Javid Iqbal.
Trail of offence by a Judge not appointed as such by appropriate Government under Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act XL of 1958, held no trial in the eye of law. Acquittal set aside. (DB) PLD 1969 Lah. 312 State v. Bashir Ahmad.
Transfer of cases. High Court not a "Special Judge" and therefore, cannot withdraw a case to itself under section 526, Cr. P.C PLD 1967 Lah. 190 State v. Muhammad Abbas.
Offence not in schedule can be joined with scheduled offence and can be tried by Special Judge under the Act. PLJ 1980 SC 73. Asghar Ali Shah.
Conviction for different offence from the offence with which charged by the Special Judge is valid because of Section 6 (4) of Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 Provision of Section 237 or 238 Cr. PC do not restrict the powers of Special Judge. (SC) PLD 1973 SC 619 Tahir v. Muhammad.
No separate sentences passed for offence under section 409, P.P.C and under section 409, P.P.C. and under section 5 (4) of Act Ii of 1947. Held sentence not illegal. PLD 1969 Pesh. 12 Muhammad Sadiq Javed.
Sentence under Section 161, P.P.C. should be deterrent. Enhanced by the High Court. PLD 1967 Lah. 923 Akhtar Hussain. (SC) NLR 1984 Cr. 391 Muhammad Amin : PLJ 1984 SC 336.
Mitigation. The accused losing job after raid. Had served 20 years. Had suffered Hardship and torture during trial. Sentence of imprisonment remitted but fine maintained. 1973 P. Cr. LJ 28 Habib-ur-Rehman.
Fine. Sentence in default for more than 9 months cannot be imposed (SC) 1969 P.Cr. LJ 923 Muhammad Ali; 1969 SCMR 372.
Fine. Although the embezzled amount has been paid by the sureties of the accused yet High Court was held to be justified in enhancing the amount of the fine to Rs. 14, 182 i.e equal to the amount embezzled (SC) 1968 SCMR 544 = 1968 P. Cr. LJ 984 Shah Nawaz.
Embezzled amount when paid back. Whether gain as to attract provisions of section 9, Special Leave granted by Supreme Court. (SC) 1968 SCMR 544 ; Shah Nawaz.
Sentence enhancement by High Court in appeal by the accused. Accused sentenced to 2« years' R.I by trial Court and fine of Rs. 10,000 High Court in appeal reducing the imprisonment to already undergone (about 8 1/2 months) maintaining sentence of fine but in default ordering the appellant to undergo 1 year instead of 6 months' R.I. Supreme Court held that the High Court had not enhanced the sentence. (SC) 1968 SCMR 597 Muhammad Riaz-ul-Haq.
Withdrawal of case. Sanctioning authority can move for withdrawal of case even after giving sanction for prosecution for prosecution. (DB) PLD 1965 Q. 1. State v. Riaz-u-Rehman.
Copies of Statement of P.Ws. not supplied before trial. Held trial was vitiated. PLD 1962 Lah. 144. Karim Bakhsh.
Appeal against fine of Rs. 15 only is competent. Section 413, Cr. P.C is not applicable at the appeal is under section 10 of Act XL of 1958 PLJ 1975 Cr. C. (Lah) 23 Nazir Ahmad.
Petition for leave to appeal to Supreme Court from acquittal by High Court, against a person serving in connection with the affairs of the Central Government, filed by Assistant Advocate-General of West Pakistan government without any direction of the Central government as required by Section 10 (2). Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958, held, not competently presented. Leave granted rescinded and petition dismissed. (SC) PLD 1968 SC 265 State v. Muhammad Hussain.
Limitation: No period is fixed for appeal or Revision under Section 10 of Act XL of 1958. 1968 P. Cr. LJ 874 State v. Dr. Abdul Fateh.
Giver of bribe cannot recover it, because he committed a crime when he paid the bribe. Govt. servant receiving the bribe is liable to account for the bribery whether in cash or kind or property purchased with the proceeds of the bribe. Property purchased with the proceeds are held in trust for the government. 1994 SCMR 1431, Attorney General for Hong Kong v. Reid and others.
[Prevention of Corruption Act II of 1947/Pakistan Criminal law Amendment Act XL of 1958 and Bribe. (Section 161, PPC) etc.]
Offences not specified in Schedule. Special Judge has no jurisdiction either to convict accused or to direct his prosecution if such offences are not specified in the Schedule. PLD 1965 Kar. 362 Shaukat Hussain.
Offences not in Schedule. Accused while being tried for Scheduled Offence can be tried for offence not in schedule. PLD 1962 Lah. 744 Muzaffar Hussain.
"Offences not in Schedule cannot be tried by a Special Judge except when another offence can be joined together with any of the scheduled offences, under section 234 to 238, Cr. P.C. PLD 1965 Lah. 266 Mukhtar Ahmad. PLD 1967 Kar. 768 (SC) = PLD 1971 SC 467 Ghulam Rasool.
Section 5 of Act II of 1947 is more comprehensive than Section 161, PPC. If the ingredients of the offence under section 161 are not satisfied, even then offence under section 5 of II of 1947, is made out when a Public Servant abuses his position. (DB) PLD 1955 Lah. 540 Abdul Hamid v. Crown.
Distinct offences. Offence under section 5 and one under section 161, Penal Code are distinct. Accused charged with Section 161, PPC read with section 5. Irregularity is curable under section 537, Cr. PC. PLD 1952 Bal. 1. Saadat Ali Khan.
Wrong orders passed in judicial or quasi-judicial functions cannot be made subject-matter of corruption or criminal misconduct. PLD 1966 Lah. 910. Ghulam Jilani.
Habitually accepts bribe. is to be proved either by a number of previous convictions under section 161, P.P.C or by proving number of instances in which bribe was accepted. Section 234, Cr. P.C is not applicable. PLD 1951 Lah. 11, Ghulam Muhammad v. Crown.
Abuse of Position as Public Servant. (Section 5 (I) (a). It is not necessary that a public servant should in fact have power to render service, it is sufficient that a public servant indicates that he is capable of rendering service for gratification, also held that under section 237, Cr. P.C accused charged under section 5 of Act II of 1947, can be punished for an offence under section 5 (I) (d) of the Act when no prejudice is caused to him. (SC) PLD 1956 SC 284 Muhammad Farooq.
Local Police does not figure anywhere and inquiry and investigation has to be done by Anti-corruption Establishment in matter of allegations of corruption against Public Servants. Rule 9 of Punjab Anti-corruption Rules 1985 provides that Anti-corruption Establishment Punjab only, has to proceed with inquiry or investigation against all officers/officials of all departments directly with on without obtaining permission from competent authority of concerned Department subject to jurisdiction of officers of Establishment. However with regard to judicial officers permission of Lahore High Court has to be obtained by Anti-corruption Establishment before it proceeds with inquiry or investigation against a judicial officer. Relevant policy D.O. letter No. 268/RHC dated 7.3.1975 issued by Registrar Lahore High Court is relevant. Cases with alleged Anti-corruption offences can be registered against Public Servants by Established under written orders of officers mentioned in Rule 8 of Punjab Anti-corruption Establishment Rules 1985 at Anti-corruption Establishment and not be inferior police officers or superior police officers at local police stations and obviously after adopting distinct method as provided in Punjab Anti-corruption Establishment Rules 1985. PLJ 1997 Lah 1121, Muhammad Sharif v. SHO, P.C. City Hafizabad.
Abuse of official position. Private dealing e.g. Sale of property etc. may amount to abuse of official position (DB) PLD 1954 Sindh 256 lnayat Hussain Shah v. Crown.
Misconduct under section 5 (2) of Act II of 1947. When there is dishonest or fraudulent misappropriation of property by public servant it is no bar to accused being charged under section 409, P.P.C (SC) 1969 SCMR 481 Zille Hussain Kazmi 1969 P.Cr.L.J. 1025.
Patwari making a false mutation entry cannot be convicted u/S. 5 (2) of Prevention Corruption Act, II of 1947, as he is obliged under the law to enter report (right or wrong) made to him and it was for the revenue officer to verify it. NLR 1989 Cr. 71 Mushtaq Ahmed.
Capable of doing favour. Bribe-giver believing that the accused was capable of doing the favour and giving bribe, held it is immaterial whether accused was in fact capable of doing the favour or not. 1975 P.Cr.LJ 1132 Muhammad Asghar.
Capable of doing favour. It is not necessary that the public servant must be capable of doing favour. It is enough for offence under section 161, P.P.C that the person giving bribe thinks that public Servant has opportunity to show him favour. PLD 1955 Bal. 6 Jafar Shah v. Crown (DB) PLD 1953 Dac. 240 Mukheshar Rehman v. Crown PLD 1959 Pesh. 166 (FC) = 1969 SCMR 766 Lutfur Rehman v. Crown 1969 P.Cr.L.J. 1558 (SC) = 1974 SCMR 457 Akhtar Hussain Khan.
Being not in a position to show favour to the complainant cannot be accepted as a defence for an offence u/S. 161, PPC as the acceptance of illegal gratification as a motive for rendering any service with any public servant is an offence. 1989 SCMR 1814. Muhammad Akhtar.
Government Servant receiving bribe not in a position to show favour or disfavour to the complainant in exercise of his judicial functions. Money paid to him, held, not paid as a motive or reward for doing any official act. No offence under sections 165-A, 109 PPC brought home to the accused. 1971 P.Cr.L.J. 123 Muhammad Aslam. AIR 1921 Cal. 344.
Receiver of bribe not in a position to show favour. Bribe offered to Sub-inspector under the belief that he was in a position to show favour to the (accused) complainant but actually the Sub-Inspector had already put the goods seized in custody of Court. Conviction under section 161 PPC held proper (SC) 1969 P.Cr.L.J. 1558 Lutfur Rehman v. Crown 1974 SCMR 199 Akhtar Hussain Khan.
Private person taking bribe for a public servant cannot be punished under Criminal Law Amendment Act by a Special Judge Anti-Corruption. PLD 1985 SC 225. Muhammad Rafiq PLD 1985 SC 351.
Receiver of bribe not directly concerned with the work to be done yet held guilty under section 161, PPC as he was to use his good offices to get the work done by a fellow clerk. (SC) 1974 SCMR 249 Rashid Ahmad.
Subordinate receiving money on direction from acquitted co-accused. Conviction cannot be maintained as case of co-accused not distinguishable from that of the convict. Appeal allowed. NLR 19884 Cr. 518. Atta Muhammad. 
Past favour. If reward is given for favour shown in the past believing that if no reward is given that act would go against him, held the offence falls under section 5 (2) of Act II of 1947. PLD 1962 Dac. 441 Ashit Kumar.
Favour already shown to the bribe-giver and mere statement that the tainted money was taken as loan only, held, accused guilty of obtaining illegal gratification. 1975 P Cr.L.J. 473 Zulfiqar Hussain.
Public Servant functus officio as to matter, in which bribe given. Held no offence under section 161, PPC is made out. 30 Cr.LJ 1055 = 36 Cr.L.J. 626 and 44 I C 369 followed. PLD 1956 Kar. 483 Fasih-ud-Din v. Crown PLD 1956 Kar. 531-PLD 1960 Pesh. 41 Said Nawaz Shah.
Exercise of personal influence. Actual exercise of personal influence with an official is not necessary. Promise to exercise is enough if illegal gratification is extracted on that account. PLD 1956 Lah. 1051. Muhammad Shafi v. Crown.
Official act. Expression "Official Acts" is to be given widest meaning. Telegraph Official undertaking to destroy original telegram before due date for illegal gratification covered by expression. (SC) PLD 1960 SC 50 Muhammad Zaheer Nadeem.
Official acts include bona fide and mala fide acts. Bribe taker receiving money by holding out threat of mala fide act, held is within mischief of Section 161, PPC (SC) PLD 1964 SC 266 Saeed Ahmad.
Not an official act. When a person accepts money as motive or reward for an act which cannot be said to be official, he is not guilty under section 161, Penal Code. 1950 Allahabad Law Journal 57 Bechey Lal (1883) 3 A. W. N. 179 Abdul Aziz v. Emp.
When act done in private capacity and not as a public servant, the accused cannot be punished under section 5(1)(d) of the said Act, PLD 1975 Kar. 239 Ganhwar.
Misconduct overcharging fee by a medical officer in a private medico legal case is not misconduct. (SC) PLD 1961 SC 224 Niaz Ahmad.
Attempt, demand for gratification made and refused amounts to attempt. Demand by itself not sufficient to constitute attempt. Accused demanding illegal gratification but subsequently revoking the demand. Held, no attempt. PLD 1958 Kar. 15 Illahi Bakhsh. OVER-Ruled by PLD 1959 SC 1 State v. Illahi Bakhsh.
Attempt-demanding illegal gratification constitutes attempt to commit the offence. No question of locus poenitentiae. (SC) PLD 1959 SC 1 State v. Illahi Bakhsh.
Drafting appeal. A rehabilitation clerk accepting Rs. 10/- for drafting grounds of appeal. Conduct held reprehensible but money obtained cannot be said to be obtained by corruption or illegal means. (FC) 1969 SCMR 843 Abdul Hadi v. Crown. 
Misappropriation. Mere entrustment of property to the accused and its shortage is not enough to establish guilt of dishonest misappropriation. 1968 P Cr.L.J. 358 Mustafa Shah.
Temporary misappropriation, sentence of fine-Expression "Gain derived" not to be equated with "amount misappropriated." PLD 1968 Lah. 1124 Ashfaq Ahmad.
Certification. No gain to the accused. Where a gun licence clerk informed an applicant that his license would not be renewed unless he invested Rs. 100/= in War Bonds, it was held that this amounted to an attempt to obtain a gratification within the meaning of section 161, Penal Code, 24 Pat. 138 K.B. Sen v. crown.
No wrongful gain or wrongful loss caused when advance of Government money was made to the staff. No criminal intention involved in the transaction. Accused acquitted. (SC) PLD 1971 SC 213 Siraj-ul-Islam.
Ingredients of offences of under sections 162 & 163, PPC. All that is necessary is that the giver of the money should have paid the money as a motive or reward for so inducing a public servant i.e. the person taking the money would either corrupt a public servant by illegal means or induce him by personal influence to show favour or disfavour to the giver of the money. (SC) PLD 1971 SC 467 Ghulam Rasul.
Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are distinct offences. (SC) PLD 1969 SC 278 Muhammad Sarwar. 
Misjoinder of charges. Two separate and independent cases of passing bribe to M and Z joined up together in one case. Prejudice caused to the accused. Irregularity not curable under section 537, Cr. P.C. Proceedings quashed. (SC) 1973 SCMR 542 Muhammad Abbas.
Charges under section 161, PPC and section 5 (2) of Act II of 1947, for the same transaction is authorised under Criminal Procedure Code; punishment however cannot be awarded more than once for same offence. (SC) 1974 SCMR 457 Akhtar Hassan Khan. 1974 SCMR 199.
Conviction under two offences i.e. under section 409, PPC and section 5 (4) of Act II of 1947, arising out of the same act is not sustainable under General Clauses Act. PLD 1959 Kar. 56 Ali Abbas.
Arrest without warrant. Police Officer below the rank of D.S.P (Now inspector) Investigating under orders of a Magistrate may arrest the accused without a warrant, as arrest is part of the investigation. PLD 1959 Pesh. 166 Ghani-ur-Rehman.
Investigation or inquiry of Scheduled Offences as mentioned in West Pakistan Anti-Corruption Ordinance, 1961 can only be conducted by Anti-Corruption Establishment and not by local police. Registration of case cannot be ordered by a magistrate but can be ordered by a deputy commissioner being ex-officio Deputy Director of the Establishment. PLJ 1996 Cr. C (Lah) 916, Saleem Hussain.
Investigation unauthorised. Investigation conducted by officer not authorised to do so does not vitiate the trial but is curable under section 537, Cr. PC. (SC) PLD 1968 SC 265 State v. Muhammad Hussain 1968 P.Cr.LJ 363 Mehr Khan (FC) PLD 1956 FC 106 Crown v. Mehr Ali.
Investigation partly unauthorised does not vitiate the trial unless accused is prejudiced. 1968 P Cr.L.J. 363 Mehr Khan.
Magistrate granting permission to investigate. Magistrates are not required to apply their minds to facts of case before ordering investigation. Permission to investigate not bad simply because the offence of accepting bribe had not yet been committed, (DB) PLD 1956 Kar. 139 Crown v. Ghulam Murtaza Khan.
Investigation by Police Officer below the rank of D.S.P. (Section 3 Police Officer below the rank of D.S.P. can investigate offences punishable under section 161 or 165, PPC with the orders of the Magistrate first Class PLD 1954 Bal. 1 Feroze-ud-Din v. Crown.
Note.- Vide: Anti-corruption Laws Amendment Act XII of 1965, word "Inspector" has been substituted for words "Deputy Superintendent" in section 5-A of Act II of 1947.
Investigation by S. I. Police without authorisation from Magistrate First Class. Held, trial is not vitiated. The irregularity is curable under section 537, Cr.P.C. unless it has caused prejudice for the accused. Case remanded for retrial on merits. (DB) PLD 1955 Lah. 667 Crown v. Nur Alam PLD 1958 Dac. 145 PLD 1960 Kar. 607 and 204 (Contra, PLD 1958 Kar. 643) PLD 1959 Kar. 714 PLD 1968 SC 265. State v. Muhammad Hussain.
Whether the act is done in discharge of official duty. The test is whether the act lies within the scope of his official duty. For example, to accept bribe or to pick pocket is not within the scope of official duty. (PC) PLD 1948 PC 273 Phanindra Chandera Neogy v. King.
Act even though not within duty of accused, yet when such public servant induces belief in the bribe-giver that he can do the favour, the accused is guilty u/S. 161, PPC and Section 5(2) of Act II of 1947. 1985 SCMR 867. Abdul Latif.
Protection to Public Servants ceasing to hold office is available when offence attributed relates to period when person concerned worked as a Public servant (DB) PLD 1975 Lah. 532. Ch. Zahur Elahi v. Director, Anti-Corruption.
Accused who is not a public servant cannot be convicted u/s. 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 1995 SCMR 387, Sikandar A. Karim.
Public Servant committing offence while in service can be prosecuted after retirement under section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, 1971 P.Cr.L.J. 959 Asghar Hussain.
Not a Public Servant when offence committed, held Act XL of 1958, not applicable. 1958 P.Cr.L.J. 1374 Muhammad Azhar.
Employee of Road Transport is not a public servant, u/s. 21 of PPC. PLJ 1990 Cr.C. (Lah.) 137. Muhammad Sadiq.
Contractor for auction appointed by Government is a public servant and hence triable by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption. NLR 1981 CrI. 209, Aqa S. Asghar Hussain.
Accused ceasing to be Public servant when sanction to prosecute was granted. Jurisdiction of the Court is not affected whether sanction was necessary or not. (SC) PLD 1962 SC 102 Ali Ahmad. (DB) PLD 1964 Lah. 253 State v. Raja Khan.
Ceasing to be public servant when cognizance of the offence taken by Special Judge, held, the Judge is competent to try the case if the offence was committed when the accused was a public servant. (D.B) NLR 1984 Cr. 248 State v. Muhammad Irshad.
Provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. & Sec. 6(5) of Pakistan Cr.Law Amendment Act XL of 1958 being repugnant to injunctions of Islam have ceased to have effect. PLD 1992 S.C. 72, Federation of Pakistan v. Zafar Awan Advocate.
Sanction for prosecution u/S. 197 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance by court is not required now. PLD 1992 S.C. 72 referred. PLD 1994 S.C. 281, Malik Shaukat Ali Dogar etc. v. Ghulam Qasim Khan Khakwani etc.
Sanction absence of is an irregularity not curable under section 537, Cr.P.C. PLD 1949 Bal. 17 Ghulam Rasul v. Crown. (DB) PLD 1958 Dac. 532 Muhammad Bahar-ud-Din.
Sanction for Prosecution order not exhibited in court to from part of record. Neither challan nor sanction order signed by the trial court. Appeal can be decided only on the basis of material on the record and not on document which is not part of the record. It cannot be said that the Trial Court acquired jurisdiction legally. PLJ 1994 Cr.C. (Kar.) 149, Habib-ur-Rehman 1994 P.Cr.L.J. 111.
Sanction Mechanical. Material facts of case not placed before sanctioning authority. Mechanical sanction is not in accordance with law, PLD 1954 Lah. 37 Tufail Muhammad v. Crown. PLD 1975 Lah. 1404 Muhammad Akhtar Shah.
Sanction not produced until conviction and appeal by accused although it was obtained from competent authority before cognizance of offence. Conviction set aside. (DB) PLD 1950 Dac. 7 Anwar Ali v. Crown.
Sanction; Personal inquiry before granting sanction for prosecution is not obligatory on the officer doing so. PLD 1956 Lah. 81 A.R. Masood Ali v. Crown.
Sanction by Federal Government was considered proper when the accused at the time of the commission of the offence was in the employment of the Federal Government though he was serving in connection with the affairs of the Provincial and he was covered by category No. 2 indicated in the definition of "appropriate Government", in Sec. 2(a) of Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958. 1993 SCMR 61, State v. Hafeez-ur-Rehman Najmi.
Sanction-incompetent. Rehabilitation Tehsildar appointed by Governor but sanction for prosecution given by Financial Commissioner, held, invalid (FC) PLD 1954 FC 248 Mahboob Khan v. Crown.
Sanction Form. No particular form for sanction is necessary. Charge described in words is enough even if section of the Penal Law is not stated. PLD 1952 Bal. 1. Saadat Ali Khan v. Crown (DB) PLD 1965 Quetta 1. State v. Riaz-ur-Rehman. 1968 P.Cr; LJ 675.
Sanction by authority competent to remove the Public Servant from office is valid sanction for prosecution (DB) PLD Sindh 230 Latif Ali Shah v. Crown.
Sanction-mind not applied. There is no valid sanction if the sanctioning authority does not apply its mind to the facts of the case nor it is valid approval if prosecution for a particular or specified offence is not approved PLD 1960 Kar. 607 Manzoor Elahi.
Sanction Invalid. Part of section which was applicable to the facts of the case not mentioned in the sanction, held, sanction was invalid. PLD 1958 Lah. 655 Muhammad Ramzan.
Sanction not necessary when the accused ceases to be a Public Servant at the time criminal case is instituted against him. PLD 1962 Lah. 689 = (SC) PLD 1962 SC 277 State v. Saeed Ahmad. (SC) PLD 1965 SC 139 Nazir Hussain Shah. (SC) 1974 SCMR 445 Muhammad Abbas.
Sanction-for Prosecution under Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act (XL of 1958) is necessary when the accused is in service but when the Public Servant is not in service at the time the court takes cognizance of the case, the sanction is not needed otherwise. (SC) 1974 SCMR 445 Muhammad Abbas.
Sanction-for person ceasing to be public Servant at the time of prosecution. Sanction is not necessary. PLD 1958 SC. (IND.) 308 SA Venkataraman.
Sanction-not necessary when the appointing and dismissing authority himself is the complainant. 1968 P.Cr.L.J. 316 Muhammad Iqbal.
When the accused ceases to be Public Servant at the time of trial. Public Servant committing offence of cheating under section 420, PPC cannot be said to be acting in discharge of his official duty. PLD 1963 Lahore 186 State v. Sikandar Khan.
When the accused ceases to be a public servant at the time of trial for offences under Act II of 1947. PLD 1962 SC 277 1965 SC 139 PLD 1967 SC 23 1972 SCMR 239 Ref. PLJ 1975 Kar. 198 Muhammad Mahmood Ahmad. SC PLD 1962 SC 102 1974 SCMR 445.
Sanction for prosecution is not necessary when the accused had ceased to be Public Servant at the time the cognizance of offence was taken. PLD 1976 Kar. 451 Muhammad Mahmood.
Sanction necessary when a Government Servant in discharge of official functions causes slight injury, without animosity, due to loss of temper. (Cr. P.C. Section 197). (SC) PLD 1960 SC (PAl.) 358. SMH. Rizvi v. A Salam etc.
When appeal against dismissal pending. Accused dismissed from service on 28.1.1961. Cognizance of case taken by Special Judge on 29.9.1961. Accused's appeal against dismissal pending during his period. Held accused deemed to be in service pending the disposal of his appeal and sanction necessary. (SC) PLD 1972 SC 271 Rashid Ahmad.
Sanction cannot become invalid subsequently. Sanction valid at the time of commencement of prosecution, cannot become invalid by subsequent change of the status of the accused necessitating sanction of different Governments, trial once begun cannot be held invalid by reason of supervening events. (DB) 1975 P.Cr.L.J. 834 (Kar.) Additional A.G. v. Malik Muhammad Hanif etc.
Public Servant, employee of West Pakistan Social Welfare Council held to be public servant. When no sanction obtained and the tribunal not competent to try the case, trial vitiated and accused acquitted. PLD 1972 Lah. 196 Zabtey Khan.
Employee of Utility Stores Corporation held to be a public servant. NLR 1984 Criminal 248 State v. Muhammad Irshad.
Sanction accused retired after departmental proceedings. Retirement order set aside and fresh inquiry ordered. Held, accused in service and trial without sanction was without jurisdiction. 1975 P.Cr.LJ 583 PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Kar.) 556 Ghulam Ali Jinnah.
Sanction to prosecute where re-employed. Accused a Public Servant at time of commission of offence and dismissed but re-employed in other Government Service before date of trial. Sanction necessary. 1975 P.Cr.L.J. 105 State v. Aziz Ahmad etc.
Re-employed by Government Accused ceasing to be Public Servant but re-employed by Government. Sanction for trial necessary. PLJ 1976 Kar. 198 Muhammad Mahmood Ahmad.
Sanction not obtained when petitioner retired compulsorily and his appeal pending. Deemed to be in service. Trial without sanction is without jurisdiction. PLD 1980 Cr.C. (Lah.) 418. Muhammad Yaqub.
Sanction for Prosecution not valid when mind not applied. Letter of head of department finding accused innocent, it amounts to refusal to accord sanction although it does not say so in many words. When the pre-requisite of the trial i.e. the sanction is not there, the accused is entitled to come direct to the High Court for quashment PLJ 1976 Lah. 150 Muhammad Akbar Shah.
Sanction for prosecution must reveal allegations with some accuracy and view of concerned authority on points as to what was gathered by him from facts necessitating trial. Where sanction found mechanical, conviction set aside. PLD 1982 Cr.C. (Q) 273. Ghulam Muhammad Shirazi.
Sanction-mind not applied: Argument without force when the sanctioning authority considering facts and other circumstances of the case alongwith the explanation of the accused. (SC 1973 SCMR 592 Faiz Alam.
Invalid sanction for Prosecution vitiates the trial. Sanction refused at first instance and later sanction granted under police advice by another person. Held sanction improper. (PLD 1976 Lah. 105 Muhammad Shafiq.
Sanction invalid when granted on instructions from superior officer when appointing authority itself not inclined to do so. PLD 1962 Kar. 648 Sher Muhammad.
At first sanction for prosecution refused by committee No. III later on Committee No. II reviewed the previous order of Committee No. III. Held, decisive step having already been taken by Committee No. III, Committee No. II could not revise earlier order, Sanction being illegal. Appeal allowed. PLJ 1994 Cr.C. (Kar.) 171, Muhammad Bashir 1994 P.Cr.LJ. 140.
Sanction for trial & time of commission of offence. Sanction should be obtained from competent person at the time of the commission of offence and not from the person competent at the time of making FIR 1978 P.Cr.L.J. 62 Muhammad Saleem.
Sanction not competent: Authority competent to remove Public Servant from office no longer competent to accord sanction. Proceedings initiated on such sanction held without jurisdiction. PLD 1969 Lah. 103 Abdullah Khan.
Sanction sought from wrong officer. Special Judge seeking sanction from wrong officer, not receiving reply within 60 days commencing trial on assumption that sanction was deemed to have been accorded, held, trial without jurisdiction for want of sanction. PLD Kar. 192 Muhammad Ishaq.
Sanction from Provincial Government instead of Central Government and also trial by Provincial Special Judge of a Central Government Employee when offence was committed. Trial vitiated. 1974 P.Cr.L.J. Note 150 P. 92 Muhammad Sarwar.
Subsequent sanction: When cognizance of offence taken sanction given by the person which had no authority to do so. Subsequent notification giving power of sanction held, is of no avail. (SC) PLD 1972 SC 271 Rashid Ahmad.
Sanction not accorded voluntarily: Sanction found not accorded voluntarily. Trial vitiated. PLJ 1976 Lah. 569 Muhammad Shafiq.
Sanction-Railway Employees Proper sanctioning authority is the Central Government. PLJ 1976 Lah. 569 Muhammad Shafiq.
Sanction-defective: Sanction order contemplating prosecution of a Public Servant and a businessman under section 420/120-B, PPC State counsel admitting that there was nothing against the businessman. Held, prosecution could not proceed against Public Servant only on the basis of sanctioning Order. (DB) 1968 P. Cr.LJ. 641 A.A.G. West Pakistan v. Aziz-ud-Din.
Sanction for offence under Section 408, PPC. Although Offence under section 408 PPC also falls under Section 5(1) (c) of Act II of 1947 yet a Public Servant can be proceeded against for an offence under section 408, PPC without sanction under the General Law. Note now Section 408, PPC is in the Schedule to the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958-XL of (1958). PLD 1952 Lah. 472.ÿCrown v. Babu Khan.
Sanction-to be given by authority under whom accused was working at the time of the commission of offence. PLD 1968 Lah. 181 Ghulam Qadir.
Sanction-Governor may grant sanction when the appointing authority is syndicate of university. 1968 P.Cr.L.J. 1945 S.M. Anwar.
Sanction-officiating A.S.I. Superintendent of Police and not the D.I.G. is the sanctioning authority, (SC) PLD 1965 SC 50 Qamar Ali.
Sanction-given after examination of substance of case only. Held, not invalid PLD 1957 Lah. 290 Ghulam Jilani.
Sanction-explanation of accused is not necessary before giving sanction (SC) 1970 SCMR 779 Muhammad Wazir.
Sanction objection to validity different from one raised at trial court, not to be raised for the first time in appeal before Federal Court, (FC) 1970 SCMR 208 Siraj Din.
Sanction-Inadmissibility of sanction order not raised at trial cannot be raised at appellate stage. Presumption about Public document is that it was duly executed. 1970 P.Cr.L.J. 1189 Abdul Khaliq.
Sanction necessary when appeal from dismissal pending. Accused dismissed from service and cognizance of case taken by Special Judge when appeal from dismissal pending. Held, accused deemed to be in service pending disposal of his appeal and sanction for prosecution necessary. (SC) PLD 1972 SC 271, Rashid Ahmad.
Sanction for prosecution refused twice by delegatees, held, delegator could not exercise the power as it as exhausted already. NLR 1981 Cr. 163, Shabir Ahmad Khan.
Locus Poenitentiae sanction for prosecution. Earlier order for departmental inquiry given effect to and an inquiry officer appointed. Decisive step taken. No locus poentientiate left in Govt. to revise such order and accord sanction for prosecution of Govt. servant. 1968 SCMR 367 and State v. Muhammad Ismail, 1980 SCMR 268.
Sanction refused by competent authority by letter of refusal received after 2 months and 3 days. Proceedings quashed as not competent NLR 1982 Cr. 451 Qamar-ur-Din.
Sanction once refused cannot be revised or reviewed. PLJ 1980 Cr.C. (Lah.) 165 Mukhtar Ahmad.
Sanction refused by the appropriate authority, the Special Judge discharged the accused. Accused resigned and ceased to be public servant. High Court ordered trial by Special Judge that sanction was not necessary as the accused had ceased to be a Public Servant. Supreme Court held that the special Judge had jurisdiction to try only public's servants and other persons who are connected with the case as abettors or conspirators etc. An accused person who at the time of the commission of the offence was a public servant does not lose the protection provided under section 6(6) Pak. Cr.ÿLaw Amendment Act, 1958 that previous sanction of the appropriate Government will be required to prosecute him. (SC) 1972 SCMR 239 Dr. Abdul Fateh Ursani Awan. (Case heard on 20.8.1970. see also PLD 1965 SC 139 when sanction not necessary) OVERRULED BY 1974 SCMR 445 Muhammad Abbas.
Presumption is not to be drawn until explanation of the accused and evidence if any produced by him. Possibility of explanation of accused being true benefit to go the accused. PLD 1963 Kar. 582 Ghulam Ali.
Presumption under section 4 of the Act II of 1947. It is necessary for the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt before presumption can be drawn. The burden of proof on the accused is not so heavy as burden is on the prosecution. PLD 1954 Sindh 126 Crown v. Amjad Ali.
Presumption that gratification was received for criminal purpose is to be made on the basis of adequate evidence. (SC) PLD 1964 SC 428 Abdul Khaliq.
Passing of currency notes to the accused. Guilt of the accused is presumed. Accused offering plausible explanation supported by witnesses. Onus on accused discharged. Failure by prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal. Solitary statement of decoy witness needs corroboration. PLJ 1973 Lah. 205 Allah Diwaya 1973 P.Cr.L.J. 1036.
Onus on accused to explain how and for what accused got tainted money recovered from him. (SC) 1975 SCMR 164 Ghulam Nabi.
Explanation not reasonable. Explanation given to the Raiding Magistrate not reasonable. Conviction upheld. 1975 P.Cr.L.J. 473 Zulfiqar Hussain. 1975 P.Cr.LJ. 179 Shahid Ali.
Explanation of the accused, if it be plausible and can reasonably be true, he should be given benefit of doubt and acquitted. He need not prove his innocence. PLD 1971 Lah. 799 Muhammad Saleem.
The explanation of the accused at least as reasonable and probable as alternative version of the prosecution. Conclusion of guilty in circumstances not the only or most reasonable conclusion. Accused acquitted. (SC) 1971 SCMR 6 Abdul Rashid 1975 P.Cr.L.J. 1207 Gulzar Ahmad.
No explanation given by accused to Raiding Magistrate, shows that the defence story was worked out subsequently. (SC) 1971 SCMR 105 Ghulam Ali.
Doctor's explanation for recovery of tainted money not satisfactory. Complainant had no motive to falsely implicate the accused. Conviction maintained. (SC) 1971 SCMR 35 Ghulam Hussain.
Doctors explanation that he received the tainted money in lieu o the debt owed to him by the complainant, together with other evidence in defence. Possibility that the money was received in lieu of debt existing, held accused entitled to acquittal. 1971 SCMR 35 Ghulam Hussain.
Plea of the accused that the money received was in satisfaction of the loan taken by the complainant from the accused and not as a bribe was found to be possible. Accused acquitted. 1994 P.Cr.L.J. 120, Ghulam Rasul.
Statements of accused in a corruption case in a trap-raid were held to be not admissible and the effect of sections 164, 364 and 533, Cr.P.C. was examined by a Full Bench in Ghulam Abbas v. The State (PLD 1968 Lah. 101, but it has been overruled by the Supreme Court holding that such statements are admissible. (SC) PLD 1969 SC 278 Muhammad Sarwar. (SC) 1971 SCMR 817 State v. Ghulam Abbas, State v. Rasul Bakhsh.
Statement of accused to Magistrate at the time of laying the trap, where and when not admissible at trial. (FB) PLD 1968 Lah. 101 1968 P.Cr.L.J 17 Ghulam Abbas. OVERRULES by 1971 SCMR 817 State v. Ghulam Abbas and PLD 1969 SC 278. Muhammad Sarwar.
Statement before Raiding Magistrate taken into consideration for raising presumption u/S. 4 of P.C.A. 1947. PLJ 1984 Cr.C. (Lah.) 499. Hafazat Ali Shah.
Trap Case-talk between complainant and accused not overheard by Raiding Inspector or Magistrate. Acceptance of money in circumstances cannot be inferred as illegal gratification 1973 P.Cr.L.J. 833 Ijaz Ahmad, also see 1973 P.Cr.L.J 313 Maqsood Ahmad. PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Lah.) 245 Muhammad Sadiq, 1975 P.Cr.L.J. 1286.
Not only payment of bribe money to the accused is to be seen but also conversation between the complainant and the accused has to be heard by the members of the raiding party, in cases u/S. 161 PPC when allegation of taking bribe is made. 1996 SCMR 181, Muhammad Ashraf.
Neither passing of money seen nor conversation heard between the accused and complaint by the raiding party. The defence version adopted by the accused at the very out set supported by the prosecution. Accused acquitted. PLR 1997 Lah. 683, Abdus Sattar.
Over-hearing of conversation between complainant and accused by Raiding Magistrate is not requirement of law. PLD 1992 Lah. 45. Allah Ditta.
Neither talk heard nor passing of money seen, in a corruption trap case neither the Raiding Magistrate saw the passing of tainted money nor be heard the talk. Planting of tainted money not ruled out accused acquitted, 1977 P.Cr.LJ 78. Saghir Hussain. 1978 P.Cr.LJ 257 Muhammad Ishaq.
No conversation heard or passing of money seen between the complainant and the accused, by Magistrate and the police officer. Conviction set aside. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lah.) 415, Shahzad Hussain; PLD 1996 Lah. 271, Muhammad Zafar.
Neither conversation heard nor saw money being passed by the complainant to the accused. Complainant biased against the accused, his evidence required corroboration. Accused acquitted. 1996 SCMR 181, Muhammad Ashraf.
Passing of bribe money not seen and no conversation between the accused and the complainant heard by the raiding Magistrate and the police officer. Held the prosecution failed to prove its case. PLJ 1996 Cr.C (Lah.) 263, Muhammad Zafar PLD 1996 Lah. 271.
Magistrate and police officer neither heard the talk between the accused and the complainant party nor saw the passing of tainted money. Accused acquitted on benefit of doubt. 1994 P.Cr.LJ 975, Nazir Hussain.
Passing of money not seen nor talk heard by the raiding Magistrate or police officer. Held, case not proved beyond reasonable doubt. NLR 1984 Cr. 367. Muhammad Ali. NLR 1983 Cr. 616. Khurshed Ahmed Zaid.
Trap case-Conversation between complainant and accused not overheard, immediately before acceptance of tainted money by the accused, by any of the other prosecution witnesses. Prosecution case doubtful. Accused acquitted. 1973 P.Cr.L.J 313 Maqsood.
Associated for Magistrate on police-raids is condemned by the Highest Courts. The law does not provide that the raid should be supervised by Magistrates. PLD 1992 Kar. 39. Abdul Razak Rathore. PLD 1971 Lah. 799, Muhammad Saleem, PLD 1956 Kar. 273-A, Mirza Zada, 52 Cr.L.J. 1116. M.C. Mitra ref.
Raiding Magistrate not over-hearing the talk between the accused and the bribe-giver when money was passed to the accused. Money recovered one hour after house search. Held, prosecution case doubtful. NLR 1984 Cr. 262. Abdul Rashid.
Raiding party neither hearing nor seeing what transpired between parties when tainted money was passed to accused. Only complainant's statement against the accused. Complainant had a motive against the accused. Benefit of doubt given to the accused, 1976 P.Cr.L.J. 273 Muhammad Ramzan. 1978 P.Cr.L.J. 247 Abdur Rehman. PLD 1988 Lah. 640. Arshad Mirza.
What transpired between complainant and accused not known. Case not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accused acquitted, 1975 P.Cr.LJ 1286 Muhammad Sadiq. PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Lah.) 245 1975 P.Cr.LJ 1267 Muhammad Usman.
Tainted money recovered in presence of Magistrate. Onus lies on accused to justify possession of such money or as to how he received it. (SC) PLJ 1978 SC 194. Muhammad Sadiq.
Passing of money not seen. PWs. holding accused by arms and his hand containing tainted money. Raiding Magistrate and Inspector not witnessing passing of money. Possibility of money being foisted on accused not ruled out. Accused acquitted. 1975 P.Cr.LJ 456 (Kar.) Muhammad Luqman.
Conversation not over heard. Recovery of tainted money from the accused and absence of enmity of witnesses held enough corroboration of complainant though corroboration of complainant though conversation between the accused and the complainant not over heard. 1975 P.Cr.LJ 526 (Kar.) Naseer Ahmad.
Conversation between the complaint and accused not heard nor tainted money seen passing in the presence of the witnesses yet leave to appeal was dismissed as the complaint and the other witnesses had no motive to falsely implicate the petitioner and the tainted money was taken out by the accused from his pocket in the presence of the Magistrate conducting the raid. 1998 SCMR 586, Malik Umar Hayat.
Trap-Talk not heard. Neither Magistrate nor Police Officer hearing or seeing what passed between parties i.e., the accused and the complainant when alleged bribe paid. Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted. 1974 P.Cr.LJ Abdul Aziz PLJ 1974 Cr. C. (Lah.) 52 1975 P.Cr.LJ 1986 Muhammad Sadiq.
Magistrate not seeing passing of money nor hearing conversation between the accused and the person passing the money. Possibility that the complainant might have talked about something else while passing money cannot be excluded. Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted. 1978 P.Cr.LJ 885 Manzoor Hussain Shah.
Defence plea raised immediately after raid that the appellant had received money for the purchase of electric meter appearing probable accepted and acquittal ordered. NLR 1988 Cr. 406. Muhammad Iqbal.
Trap-case. Magistrate neither hearing conversation nor seeing passing of money Complainant inimical to the accused. Conviction set aside. 1972 P.Cr.LJ 836 Muhammad Bashir.
Decoy witness in a trap case has never been considered to be a reliable witness for conviction of accused. Court should look for independent corroboration. 1994 P.Cr.LJ 292, Muhammad Rafiq.
Trap-case Magistrate's supervision is not necessary. Statement recorded by Naib Tehsildar without observing the formalities of Section 164, Cr.P.C. held, are not inadmissible in evidence. PLD 1971 Lah. 799 Muhammad Saleem. 1973  P.Cr.LJ 28 Habib-ur-Rehman.
No reason for raiding party to falsely implicate accused: Tainted money thrown on the ground in presence of witnesses, conviction maintained. 1985 SCMR 867 Muhammad Latif.
Mere recovery of tainted money is not enough to sustain conviction, when neither conversation was heard nor the passing of money was seen between the complainant and the accused, by the Pws. Appeal allowed. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lah.) 295, Abdul Hameed.
Mere recovery of tainted money is not enough to hold the accused guilty when appellant gave reasonable explanation supported by defence. No witness heard the conversation between the complainant and the appellant. Appellant acquitted for offence u/S. 161, PPC & Sec. 5(2) PCA 1947. PLJ 1996 Cr.C (Kar.) 1458, Shabbir Ahmed.
Mere recovery of tainted money in absence of evidence to the effect that the amount was received by the accused as bribe is not enough to prove charge u/S. 5(2). Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lah.) 272, Nazir Ahmad.
Mere recovery of tainted money from accused's possession is not enough to fix him with guilt of having received it as illegal gratification unless it can be shown to have been actually accepted with the knowledge that it was illegal gratification. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Kar.) 929; Ghulam Rasul etc.
No proof that the money was passed to be accused; mere recovery of the tainted money from the accused is not enough to prove charge u/s. 161 PPC read with sec. 5 of Act II of 1947. PLJ 1994 Cr.C. (Lah.) 404, Mirza Fayyaz Beg.
Mere recovery of currency note; whose number noted on a separate paper; from the pocket of the accused and trap party placed the accused under arrest. This fact alone does not prove that the note had been given to the accused as illegal gratification. L.T. hector Tomas Huntely v. Emp. 1944 F.C. 66; Emp. v. Anwar Ali AIR 1948 Lah. 27 Ref. 20 DLR 407 Abdul Hayee. 1968 P.Cr.LJ 723 1973 P.Cr.LJ 1036, Allah Dawaya. 1977 P.Cr.LJ 694 Nazakat Raza.
Conscious acceptance of money is to be proved, mere demand of illegal gratification is not an essential ingredient of offence. 20 DLR 587 Abdul Kader.
Trap-case; Burden of proof. Tainted money recovered from the accused. Held, onus thereafter shifted on the accused to explain how he received the money. (SC) 1977 SCMR 503. Muhammad Siddiq.
Trap-Case u/S. 161 PPC & 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act II of 1947. It is not necessary in a raid (trap) case to look for direct evidence of criminal conversation between the accused and the decoy witness provided that the Magistrate who supervised the said raid was satisfied that he had not been cheated, either by the decoy witness/complainant or by the accused. PLD 1992 S.C. 254, Muhammad Aslam.
Trao-Case money recovered from fell clerk. Tainted money recovered from Accused's fellow clerk, though not officially concerned with informer's case yet money paid for use of his good offices with accused petitioner. Requirement of law under section 161, PPC and section 5(2) of Act II of 1947 held, satisfied, (SC) 1974 SCMR 249 Rashid Ahmad.
Money lying on the ground, held not to have been recovered from the accused. PLJ 1982 Cr.C. (Kar.) 185. Ayaz Hussain.
Tainted money pricked up from ground by raiding party. Conversation between bribe-giver and receiver not heard nor passing of money seen, held complainant might have made an excuse to give money which he had thrown away. PLJ 1990 Cr.C. (Lah.) 137: Muhammad Sadiq.
Tainted money not produced in Court nor it was his own to the complaint, Mashir or Magistrate. Held, presumption would be that the said amount did not exist and hence not recovered from the appellant. Appeal accepted. PLJ 1994 Cr.C. (Kar. ) 149, Habib-ur-Rehman 1994 P.Cr.L.J. 111.
Notes passed in a folded paper. Possibility that the accused took them thinking that the complainant had given him some documents. Benefit of doubt given to the accused. 1975 P.Cr.L.J. 1267. Muhammad Usman.
Decoy and trap. Practice of talking Magistrate or other judicial officers on expeditions or missions of laying traps for offenders to give bribe has been condemned by the highest courts. In this case the Police Inspector admitted both in his First Information Report and in his evidence on oath that he had agreed to accept the bribe but he alleged that he did so that the offence of appellant i.e., of giving, bribe may be detected. Held, that the Police Officer was guilty of offence under section 161, PPC. AIR 1936 P.C. 253 Ref. PLD 1956 Kar. 273 Mirzazad v. Crown.
Magistrate introducing himself as the brother of the complainant, held, lost his supervisory status and reduced himself to the status of a decoy witness. The action of the Magistrate has caused prejudice to the appellant in conducting his defence at the trial. Appeal accepted. PLJ 1995 Cr.C. (Lah.) 275 Mohammad Akram Sajjad.
Trap-Case-Magistrate becoming a decoy and passing money to the accused as brother of complaint. Evidence not relied upon. Accused acquitted. 1968 P.Cr.L.J. 1945 S.M. Anwar.
Complaint under Section 161, PPC read with section 5 of Act II of 1947. Inquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C. held in excess of jurisdiction.
Special Judge to address appropriate Government for sanction and thereafter to proceed with the case or drop it. PLD 1962 Kar. 738. Ain-ud-Din.
Complaint. Special Judge can take cognizance upon receiving complaint of facts constituting a schedule offence or upon a report by any Police Officer. Not bound to accept final report of Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption. 1968 P.Cr.LJ 471 Badr-ud-Din.
Solitary statement of complaint not corroborated by any evidence, conviction set aside, 1969 P.Cr.LJ 593, Ghulam Hussain. 1969 P.Cr.LJ 1408 Muhammad Yousaf. (SC) 1969 SCMR 379 Muhammad Bachal. 1969 P.Cr.LJ 1011.
Accomplice. Agent Provocateur passing money to another is no more than an accomplice. Testimony of such witness is not acceptable without independent corroboration. 1973 P.Cr.LJ 1036. Allah Diwaya.
Bribe giver not an accomplice. Unwilling bribe-giver is not in position of an accomplice. Slightest corroboration is sufficient to render such person's evidence reliable. Marked currency notes recovered from Accused's drawers amounts to corroboration of Testimony of bribe giver. (SC) 1974 SCMR 58 Ubedullah: 1074 P.Cr.LJ 266 Muhammad Juman (SC) 1970 SCMR 770 Rashid Ahmad, PLD 1963 Lah. 250 Qamar Ali Shah.
Accomplice: Bribe giver is an accomplice. Conviction based on solitary statement to bribe giver, uncorroborated by any other evidence set aside. 1970 P.Cr.LJ 675 Muhammad Ramzan: 1971 P.Cr.LJ 723 Muhammad Ahmad Khan; PLD 1971 Kar. 78 PLD 1959 Kar. 714 Jalal Khan.
Decoy witness held an accomplice a Section 5 and as such not to be relied on without corroboration. PLD 1967 Lah. 199. Din Muhammad. 
Decoy not accomplice. Accomplice is one who in fact participates in crime. Decoy to catch bribe taker or "conspirator" repenting and becoming an informer, held is not an accomplice. No corroboration of such decoy or informer is necessary. (SC) PLD 1962 SC 320 Zafar Ali. PLD 1963 Lah. 250 Qamar Ali. 
Bribe giver an abettor, notwithstanding that bribe was paid under threats. Section 165-B, Penal Code is only a special exemption in favour of such abettor absolving him of such liability. (SC) PLD 1964 SC 266 Saeed Ahmad.
Abettor. Person receiving precuniary advantage is abettor of offence by public servant. Pecuniary advantage itself alongwith other circumstances is proof of abetment. (FC) PLD 1956 FC 27 Muhammad Ashraf v. Crown.
Evidence of accomplice in a corruption case cannot be accepted without independent corroboration. (SC) 1969 P.Cr.LJ 1124 Mehr-un-Nisa v. Crown.
Decoy witness. His evidence cannot be acted upon unless corroborated. NLR 1984 Cr. 394. Hafazat Ali.
Accomplice. Evidence of accomplice cannot be accepted without corroboration. FC 1969 SCMR 574 Mehr-un-Nisa v. Crown; 1969 P. Cr. LJ 1124 = 1973 P. Cr. LJ 984 Mehr Khan 1973 P Cr. LJ 833 Ijaz Ahmad.
Bribe given under compulsion. Bribe giver is not particeps Crime is in respect of crime when bribe is given under compulsion. (SC) PLD 1963 SC 38 Noor Muhammad.
Trap-Bribe giver. Trap laid to catch bribe taker. Held bribe giver is not an accomplice. Weight to be attached to evidence of such person depends on facts of each case. PLD 1963 Lah. 250 Qamar Ali PLJ 1984 Cr. C. (Lah.) 499. Hafazat Ali Shah.
Approver's evidence not corroborated by independent evidence. Not relied in a corruption case. (DB) PLD 1972 Kar. 292 Noor Bibi Agha.
Confession of co-accused without corroboration that he accepted bribe for the accused, not relied upon 1972 P. Cr. LJ 189 Iftikhar Ali Razi.
Without jurisdiction. Proceedings under Sections 406 and 420, tried by Magistrate and not a Special Judge. Offence alleged to have been committed by a Government Servant in the discharge of his Public duties. No prior sanction obtained. Proceedings quashed as without jurisdiction. 1970 P. Cr. LJ 1181. Mushtaq Ahmad. Muhammad Ramzan.
Jurisdiction. Offence under Act II of 1947 exclusively triable by Special Judge. PLD 1970 Q. 49 State v. Mir Ahmed Shah.
Special Judge with less three years experience is not qualified for appointment as Special Judge. Position does not change because of notification (SC) PLD 1964 SC 482 Abdul Khaliq.
Special Judge Anti-corruption appointed for Lahore-Division only while case belonged to Sialkot District in Gujranwala Division, held, Special judge Lahore had no jurisdiction to record the evidence. Case remanded to Special Judge Gujranwala Division for recording the evidence afresh and to proceed in accordance with law. 1994 P. Cr. LJ 18, Javid Iqbal.
Trail of offence by a Judge not appointed as such by appropriate Government under Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act XL of 1958, held no trial in the eye of law. Acquittal set aside. (DB) PLD 1969 Lah. 312 State v. Bashir Ahmad.
Transfer of cases. High Court not a "Special Judge" and therefore, cannot withdraw a case to itself under section 526, Cr. P.C PLD 1967 Lah. 190 State v. Muhammad Abbas.
Offence not in schedule can be joined with scheduled offence and can be tried by Special Judge under the Act. PLJ 1980 SC 73. Asghar Ali Shah.
Conviction for different offence from the offence with which charged by the Special Judge is valid because of Section 6 (4) of Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 Provision of Section 237 or 238 Cr. PC do not restrict the powers of Special Judge. (SC) PLD 1973 SC 619 Tahir v. Muhammad.
No separate sentences passed for offence under section 409, P.P.C and under section 409, P.P.C. and under section 5 (4) of Act Ii of 1947. Held sentence not illegal. PLD 1969 Pesh. 12 Muhammad Sadiq Javed.
Sentence under Section 161, P.P.C. should be deterrent. Enhanced by the High Court. PLD 1967 Lah. 923 Akhtar Hussain. (SC) NLR 1984 Cr. 391 Muhammad Amin : PLJ 1984 SC 336.
Mitigation. The accused losing job after raid. Had served 20 years. Had suffered Hardship and torture during trial. Sentence of imprisonment remitted but fine maintained. 1973 P. Cr. LJ 28 Habib-ur-Rehman.
Fine. Sentence in default for more than 9 months cannot be imposed (SC) 1969 P.Cr. LJ 923 Muhammad Ali; 1969 SCMR 372.
Fine. Although the embezzled amount has been paid by the sureties of the accused yet High Court was held to be justified in enhancing the amount of the fine to Rs. 14, 182 i.e equal to the amount embezzled (SC) 1968 SCMR 544 = 1968 P. Cr. LJ 984 Shah Nawaz.
Embezzled amount when paid back. Whether gain as to attract provisions of section 9, Special Leave granted by Supreme Court. (SC) 1968 SCMR 544 ; Shah Nawaz.
Sentence enhancement by High Court in appeal by the accused. Accused sentenced to 2« years' R.I by trial Court and fine of Rs. 10,000 High Court in appeal reducing the imprisonment to already undergone (about 8 1/2 months) maintaining sentence of fine but in default ordering the appellant to undergo 1 year instead of 6 months' R.I. Supreme Court held that the High Court had not enhanced the sentence. (SC) 1968 SCMR 597 Muhammad Riaz-ul-Haq.
Withdrawal of case. Sanctioning authority can move for withdrawal of case even after giving sanction for prosecution for prosecution. (DB) PLD 1965 Q. 1. State v. Riaz-u-Rehman.
Copies of Statement of P.Ws. not supplied before trial. Held trial was vitiated. PLD 1962 Lah. 144. Karim Bakhsh.
Appeal against fine of Rs. 15 only is competent. Section 413, Cr. P.C is not applicable at the appeal is under section 10 of Act XL of 1958 PLJ 1975 Cr. C. (Lah) 23 Nazir Ahmad.
Petition for leave to appeal to Supreme Court from acquittal by High Court, against a person serving in connection with the affairs of the Central Government, filed by Assistant Advocate-General of West Pakistan government without any direction of the Central government as required by Section 10 (2). Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958, held, not competently presented. Leave granted rescinded and petition dismissed. (SC) PLD 1968 SC 265 State v. Muhammad Hussain.
Limitation: No period is fixed for appeal or Revision under Section 10 of Act XL of 1958. 1968 P. Cr. LJ 874 State v. Dr. Abdul Fateh.
Giver of bribe cannot recover it, because he committed a crime when he paid the bribe. Govt. servant receiving the bribe is liable to account for the bribery whether in cash or kind or property purchased with the proceeds of the bribe. Property purchased with the proceeds are held in trust for the government. 1994 SCMR 1431, Attorney General for Hong Kong v. Reid and others.