Abdul Salam Arif vs State Benefit of doubt — 2025 MLD 300 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.

Abdul Salam Arif VS State Benefit of doubt---Scope---No conviction can be awarded to an accused until and unless reliable, trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence containing no discrepancy and casting no cloud over the veracity of the prosecution story is adduced by the prosecution. Citation Name: 2025 MLD 300 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Abdul Salam Arif VS State Ss. 409, 420, 468 & 471---Prevention of Corruption act (II of 1947), S. 5---Criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forged document, using as genuine a forged document, criminal misconduct---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---appellant was charged for committing misappropriation of Rs. 1,082,500/= and making changes in ledgers/pay rolls---Prosecution case was based primarily upon the evidence of four witnesses including Post Master and Clerk of Post Office---However, perusal of record clearly reflected that there was no direct evidence available on the record, which could connect the appellant with the commission of the crime as the evidence adducted by two witnesses could not be relied upon against the appellant for the reasons that they were nominated as accused in the first FIR with the same allegation of misappropriation of amount including the appellant---Whereas, Clerk of Post Office stated in his evidence that since the NCHD authority approached the Divisional Superintendent GPO for opening the accounts of trainees for receiving the stipend and on his direction, the accounts of the trainees were opened for receiving the stipend in various Post Offices---Said witness also stated in his evidence that on 29.09.2011 appellant came along with account holder for receiving amount of Rs.10,82,500/- from whom an authority letter, issued by appellant, was obtained for withdrawal of the amount and then account holder was given the amount---However, that witness during course of his cross-examination clarified that the misappropriated amount was deposited in the account of "GN" and that as per list provided by NCHD the post office was bound to pay Rs.2500/- to each trainee---Nevertheless, the said account holder, who withdrew the amount, was not an accused in the present case---Further, that witness also confirmed that the authority letter produced did not bear the date---While the other witness who was working as Post Master at Post Office also clarified in his evidence that the appearance of account holder and copy of his CNIC was necessary---Crux of the testimonies of those two important witnesses, who belonged to Post Office wherefrom the misappropriated amount was withdrawn was that they did not implicate the appellant---So far as the evidence of complainant was concerned, he stated that the appellant deposited along with roster/list in GPO and confirmed that as per SOP it was not responsibility of appellant being DPML to receive the cheques and look after the finance and the same was to be verified by DGM---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 MLD 300 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Abdul Salam Arif VS State Ss. 409, 420, 468 & 471---Prevention of Corruption act (II of 1947), S. 5---Criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forged document, using as genuine a forged document, criminal misconduct---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Defective investigation---appellant was charged for committing misappropriation of Rs. 1,082,500/= and making changes in ledgers/pay rolls---Record showed that the amount was to be disbursed to the trainees of the Project, but Investigating Officer failed to record statements of trainees in order to strengthen the version of prosecution regarding alleged misappropriation on the part of appellant---Merely saying that the appellant had misappropriated amount would not be sufficient as it was the duty of prosecution to establish its case from all four corners---Investigating Officer during his evidence had also confirmed that there was no account in Post Office opened in the name of appellant nor any transaction of stipend amount was made in any account of the appellant in Bank or Post Office---Even Investigating Officer had not collected any documentary proof regarding alleged misappropriation nor recorded the statement of any of the trainees during investigation---In order to confirm involvement of the appellant in the alleged offence, the Investigating Officer had not collected Call Data Record of Cell number of the appellant for ascertaining the truth---Furthermore, non-association of "aG", Quality Controller, Literacy Coordinator as accused in the instant case, when they were nominated in the earlier FIR had also dented the prosecution case---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Abdul Salam Arif vs State Benefit of doubt — 2025 MLD 300 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD