NAZIR AHMED vs State S — 2022 YLRN 41 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.

NAZIR AHMED VS State S. 409---Prevention of Corruption act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Criminal breach of trust by public servant, public servant committed or attempt to commit criminal misconduct---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that the accused official Sub-Sale Inspector during his posting at Bulk depot, misappropriated the government fertilizer and seed/cotton---Record showed that no specific date of the offence had been mentioned in the FIR and even it was lacking in the charge framed by the Trial Court---Witness/landlord of the godown had deposed that on 07.12.1995 while he was on the way towards mosque from his home, he had seen that one truck was being loaded with fertilizer where the accused-appellant allegedly was present---again on 05.12.1995, he had seen at Isha prayer time that the accused was getting the truck loaded with fertilizer---On 9.12.1995, he had visited the godown and found accused selling the fertilizer in retail---Soon after 09.12.1995, he learnt that a case had been registered against the accused-appellant---Said witness, in his cross-examination had deposed that he did not remember the quantity of fertilizer bags and was not in a position to specify whether the bags were containing wheat or other food grain---Witness owned some piece of agricultural land but had not purchased fertilizer from the accused---Said witness though was an educated person, despite that he did not note the registration number of the trucks nor inquired names and whereabouts of the labourers and that of truck drivers---Being government employee, he should have noted that on 09.12.1995, which was Saturday and was not holiday, how he noted that office was opened and fertilizer was being sold out by the accused-appellant on retail---Said witness had not disclosed the specific time of his going towards the said office---Witness being landlord of the premises, rented out his godown to the Department and had relationship with complainant, thus, he was an interested witness, therefore, his evidence could not be entertained to sustain conviction against the accused-appellant---Record revealed that the evidence of the witnesses, examined by the prosecution in support of the prosecution, including the alleged eye-witnesses and the Investigating Officer, were recorded by the Trial Court without providing a counsel to the appellant---Record also revealed that none of the witnesses was cross-examined by the accused/appellant properly---accused, before the conclusion of the trial moved application under S.540-a, Cr.P.C. for recalling and re-examining of the prosecution witnesses but his request was declined by the Trial Court---Identical prayer was made on behalf of the State which was granted--- Evidence adduced by prosecution was not inspiring confidence to maintain the conviction against the accused---Case being that of misappropriation was based upon documents which were in the custody of prosecution/ department concerned---Prosecution was under obligation to establish first the stock of the alleged fertilizer etc. duly entrusted by the department to the accused---No charge paper showing the availability of the requisite quantity of bags of different items lying in the godown were handed over to accused at the time of his posting and taking over of charge---accused was appointed to work at said godown in the year 1991 and present offence, allegedly occurred in the year 1995 and no appropriate or specific date and time had been shown---Before constituting an offence of misappropriation, the prosecution was bound to adduce the details of the stock handed over to the accused---No specific document in that regard had been adduced in evidence to show that on which date, the alleged stock was brought at the godown through particular consignment---Mere word against word had been adduced by the prosecution which could not constitute any offence---appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances.

NAZIR AHMED vs State S — 2022 YLRN 41 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported