PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

Syed ALI NAWAZ SHAH vs State art — 2023 YLR 1887 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Citation
2023 YLR 1887 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Court
Sindh High Court
Year
2023
Reporter
YLR
Parties
Syed ALI NAWAZ SHAH vs State art
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 9---Q; S. 353---C; S. 9; S. 353---E; S. 353; Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898); Land Acquisition Act; National Accountability Ordinance

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

Judgment text as reported

Syed ALI NAWAZ SHAH VS State art. 47---Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, the truth of facts stated therein---Scope---article 47 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 provides relevancy of certain evidence for proving the same in subsequent proceedings, and states that the evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorized by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving the same, in a subsequent proceeding, or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or if his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable---It further provides that such proceedings should be between the same parties or their representatives in interest and the adverse party in the first proceeding had the right and opportunity to cross-examine and the questions in issue were substantially the same in the first as in the second proceeding. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1887 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Syed ALI NAWAZ SHAH VS State S. 9---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 47---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 353---Corruption and corrupt practices---Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, the truth of facts stated therein---Scope---Land of appellants along with others was compulsorily acquired for the construction of a project under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984---Prosecution case was that although the appellants and other accused were entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to some extent but they managed to obtain excess payments based on forged and fabricated Form-B---As a result, they were not entitled to such compensation---National Accountability Bureau (NAB) deemed this act as an offense of corruption and corrupt practices under S. 9(a)(iv) & (ix) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999---Accountability Court convicted the appellants---Validity---Trial Court while proceeding afresh against the appellants after remand of the matter by the Supreme Court, though re-examined prosecution's available witnesses, however, while doing so, neither the prosecution, nor the Trial Court brought on record the documents which were earlier exhibited by these witnesses in the earlier trial against the main/remaining accused---None of the alleged forged and fabricated Form-B or for that matter Form-VII, were brought in evidence---Not even in the earlier evidence---Since they were never produced, as such, were never referred to any hand writing expert---In such circumstances, when the very basic document which was alleged to be forged was never brought on record before the Trial Court, it could not have come to conclusion as to which of the forms were genuine and which were not---This was the entire basis of the allegation against the appellants; and once it was not produced before the trial Court, how could a person be convicted for such an offence was beyond comprehension---Procedure adopted by the Trial Court was not only irregular; but apparently was an illegality which could not be cured in any manner---Prosecution had failed to being any convincing material before the trial Court so as to fully implicate the appellants---Appeals were allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1887 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Syed ALI NAWAZ SHAH VS State S. 353---Evidence to be taken in presence of accused---Scope---In terms of S. 353, CrPC, all evidence is to be taken in presence of accused; except as otherwise expressly provided, and when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in presence of his pleader.

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English