MUHAMMAD QASIM BHUTTO vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 1474 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.

MUHAMMAD QASIM BHUTTO VS State Ss. 409 & 381---Prevention of Corruption act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Criminal breach of trust, theft by clerk or servant or property in possession of master, criminal misconduct---appreciation of evidence---Official of anti-Corruption Establishment (aCE) acting as complainant---Propriety---accused was charged for misappro-priating cash of Rs. 703,033/- and various articles---Perusal of the letter addressed by District and Sessions Judge to the Deputy Director, anti-Corruption Establishment, revealed that at the time of sending that letter for lodging of the FIR against the accused as well as co-accused, no details of the case properties were provided, as the same were to be provided by accountant of that Court---Said letter also showed that the accountant of the District and Sessions Court was to act as complainant---However, a look at the FIR itself revealed that instead of the accountant of the District and Sessions Court, Circle Officer, aCE, had acted as complainant, who himself recorded the FIR---Complainant to a question in his cross-examination stated that the letter of District and Sessions Judge did not disclose the nature of property and cash so embezzled, but voluntarily stated that such information was provided to him and soon thereafter he proceeded to arrest the accused---as per contents of the FIR, details of the missing case properties were provided to the complainant by the Record Keeper, however, he did not step into the witness-box---Therefore, his statement carried no evidentiary value and could not be relied upon for the purpose of convicting the accused for the said offence---It was not clarified as to why and how Circle Officer, aCE, acted as complainant in the instant case---Circle Officer, aCE, was neither an eye-witness nor an employee of the District and Sessions Court---Depositions of the prosecution witnesses revealed that none of them was present when the alleged embezzlement was committed or the amounts/case properties were allegedly misappropriated by the accused---as such, the evidence which they gave in the Court was neither heard nor seen or perceived by them, therefore, their evidence with regard to the said facts did not fall within the ambit of oral evidence---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD QASIM BHUTTO vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 1474 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR