MUMTAZ UL HAQ vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 2144 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.

MUMTAZ UL HAQ VS State Ss. 5-B, 5-C & 5(2)---Declaration of assets, made assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, criminal misconduct---Appreciation of evidence---Defective investigation---Failure to inquire into income and earnings of accused---Accused was charged for criminal misconduct and making assets beyond his means and also failed to furnish declaration of his assets---Although, the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and even in his evidence had alleged that the accused had acquired the properties which were beyond the known sources of his income, however, he had failed to enquire into and give details regarding the income of the accused and other earnings of the accused, which was fatal to the prosecution in such types of cases---Investigating Officer had also failed to record statements of the wife, mother-in-law, brother and other relatives of the accused in order to ascertain the truth or otherwise of complainant's allegations as well as the defence put forward by the accused---At the same time, prosecution was also duty-bound to establish, by producing tangible evidence, that the accused had misused his official position/authority in order to acquire the properties disproportionate to known sources of his income---Circumstances established that prosecution had not been successful in proving its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2144 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUMTAZ UL HAQ VS State Ss. 5-B, 5-C & 5(2)---Declaration of assets, made assets disproportionate to known sources of income, criminal misconduct---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay in lodging FIR not explained---Scope---Accused was charged for criminal misconduct and making assets beyond his means and also failed to furnish declaration of his assets---Record showed that the present case was initiated against the accused on the basis of complaint which, as per statement of Investigating Officer, was received by him from the Directorate of Anti Corruption Establishment on 15.08.1995---It was not understandable as to how Investigating Officer took a long period of about two years in ascertaining the truth or otherwise of the contents of said complaint, as admittedly FIR was registered on 05.07.1997---There was also lethargy of great scale on the part of complainant in moving such complaint as he himself admitted in his complaint that accused was involved in corruption and misappropriation from last twenty years---However, it had not been explained that if the accused was involved in the acts of corruption for the last twenty years and thereby accumulated properties which were beyond his known sources of income, then as to what prevented the complainant to move complaint against the accused at an earlier stage---Even if it was presumed, for the sake of arguments, that the Investigating Officer registered the FIR after receiving permission from the competent authority, even then there was delay of about eleven days in lodging the FIR according to his own admission made in his evidence---Even, no explanation had been offered in the FIR for such delay---Such fact spoke volumes about the conduct of prosecution, which created doubt regarding involvement of the accused in the commission of alleged offence---Circumstances established that prosecution had not been successful in proving its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2144 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUMTAZ UL HAQ VS State Benefit of doubt--- Principle---Conviction must be based and founded on unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt---Any doubt arising in the prosecution case must be resolved in favour of the accused. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2144 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUMTAZ UL HAQ VS State Ss. 5-B, 5-C & 5(2)---Declaration of assets, made assets disproportionate to known sources of income, criminal misconduct---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of eight years in submitting challan before Court---Accused was charged for criminal misconduct and making assets beyond his means and also failed to furnish declaration of his assets---Record showed that the Investigating Officer took almost eight years in submitting challan before the competent Court of law---In every criminal case, Officer Incharge of Police Station was required to submit challan within 14 days of the registration of FIR---If investigation was not completed within stipulated period of 14 days then only further time of three days could be granted for submission of interim challan---Thus, it could safely be held that the delay of about eight (8) years in submission of challan was sufficient to vitiate the entire proceedings---Even, if it was presumed that the Investigating Officer of the case was waiting for the permission of competent authority for submission of challan, the same was not supported by any provision of law---Circumstances established that prosecution had not been successful in proving its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2144 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUMTAZ UL HAQ VS State Ss. 5-B, 5-C & 5(2)---Declaration of assets, made assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, criminal misconduct---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Admissions by witnesses denting the prosecution case---Accused was charged for criminal misconduct and making assets beyond his means and also failed to furnish declaration of his assets---Record showed that none of the prosecution witnesses had specifically involved the accused in amassing properties beyond known sources of his income by misusing his official position/authority and/or indulging in corruption or corrupt practices---One of the prosecution witnesses admitted that he had no knowledge about property purchased by the accused in his own name or in the name of his dependents, however, there were some allegations of corruption against him---Likewise, another witness, who was Honorary Secretary of a Housing Society at the relevant time, admitted that accused had sent an application intimating the society to have purchased a plot jointly with his mother---Said witness further admitted that an agreement showing mother of accused as joint partner was sent and placed on record---Said witness further admitted that mother of accused had executed a Relinquishment Deed in respect of her share in the said property in favour of accused---Investigating Officer of the case in his cross-examination also made various admissions which also put serious dents in the prosecution case---Circumstances established that prosecution had not been successful in proving its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2144 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUMTAZ UL HAQ VS State Ss. 5-B, 5-C & 5(2)---Declaration of assets, made assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, criminal misconduct---Appreciation of evidence---Non-examination of complainant not explained plausibly---Accused was charged for criminal misconduct and making assets beyond his means and also failed to furnish declaration of his assets---Significantly, the prosecution could not examine complainant---Although the reason for non-examination of complainant given by the prosecution was that he had expired during the proceedings---However, it seemed that as per evidence of complainant's son, complainant expired on 11.12.2006 whereas FIR was registered in the year 1997 and the challan was presented before the Court in 2005 after a long delay of about eight (8) years and then charge was also framed after more than three years mostly for the reason of non-availability of police papers---In such circumstances, the contents of the complaint moved by the complainant, on the basis whereof, the proceedings were initiated, could not be proved through recording of his evidence---Although the Investigating Officer had given elaborate details of the properties allegedly purchased by the accused which, according to him, were beyond the known sources of his income, however, he had failed to give details of the income either earned by the accused in the shape of his salary etc. or received by him through other sources, details whereof had been given by him in his statement on oath---Circumstances established that prosecution had not been successful in proving its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

MUMTAZ UL HAQ vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 2144 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR