BASHIR AHMED vs State Ss — 2022 PCrLJN 46 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

BASHIR AHMED VS State Ss. 409 & 34---Prevention of Corruption act (II of 1947), S. 5---Criminal breach of trust by public servant, common intention, criminal misconduct---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---accused were charged for misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 7,55,736/- in stamp papers and court-fee stamp---First Information Report had not been exhibited, nor its author was examined before the Trial Court---Said aspect put dent in the prosecution case, and spoiled entire investigation---Contents of the FIR, in circumstances, could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of conviction of the accused---In the initial complaint/report which was subsequently incorporated in the register of FIR, the prosecution nominated three persons as accused and were assigned very active role, but later on they were let off and instead, in the challan, they were shown as prosecution witnesses---Said fact had also been admitted by witness who was serving as Circle Officer, aCE, and submitted challan before the concerned court---No permission was obtained from the Magistrate to make the nominated accused as witnesses in view of S. 337, Cr.P.C.---Evidence of said witnesses, in circumstances, could not be relied upon for the purpose of convicting the accused---Conduct of the Investigating agency was not in consonance with legal principles and it also put severe dent in the investigation/prosecution case---Record showed that most of the documents produced by witness were not original but photostat copies of the same---Evidence of said witness, transpired that the defence had timely raised such objections but Trial Court observed that such objection would be considered at the time of arguments---Likewise, at the time of production of letter of Mukhtiarkar for physical verification and physical verification report respectively, similar objection was raised and similar order was passed by Trial Court---Entire impugned judgment revealed that nothing was found which could show that such objections were considered by the Trial Court while delivering the judgment---Producing photostat copies of documents was an illegality in the case of the prosecution as it failed to produce the originals of the said documents, which was also fatal to the prosecution case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not succeeded in discharging its obligation to prove the case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

BASHIR AHMED vs State Ss — 2022 PCrLJN 46 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported