IMRAN TAJ GICHKI vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 1075 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

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

IMRAN TAJ GICHKI VS State Ss. 9(a)(v) & 10---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 16---Corruption and corrupt practices---Appreciation of evidence--- Statement of approver---Scope--- Accused-respondents were charged with the allegation of accumulation of assets disproportionate to their known sources of income and caused loss to the government exchequer to the tune of Rs. 184,609,136/- by means of corruption and corrupt practices---Trial Court convicted the accused "ITG" whereas accused "SI" was acquitted---Prosecution case hinged upon the statement of approver under S. 164. Cr.P.C., recorded by Judicial Magistrate---Testimony of approver reflected that he remained in NAB custody for 33/34 days, and the prosecution had failed to furnish the details that how many times the accused/ approver was produced before the concerned Court for obtaining his remand---Statement of approver must be voluntary and free from any coercion and its evidentiary value was contingent on independent corroboration which implicated the accused in the crime---Provision of Art. 16 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, evaluated the testimony of an accomplice or approver---Such testimony should corroborate in material particulars the substantial prosecution case and should directly implicated the accused, but in the present case the prosecution's evidence was lacking in substantiating the accusations against the appellant, as such, the testimony of approver could not be relied upon in isolation---Moreover, the interplay with Art. 43 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, allowed confessional statement as circumstantial evidence---Keeping in view the principle of safe administration of justice, it was the bounded duty of concerned Judicial Magistrate to observe the mandatory and settled procedure and precautions for recording the judicial confession of an approver---It was evident from the statement of approver that NAB had harassed the witness to give statement against the appellant and in this context, the approver filed a constitutional petition wherein he narrated all the facts---Judicial Magistrate had not adhered to the provision of S. 364 read with S. 164, Cr.P.C., as such, on such score alone the statement of approver was not to be relied upon---Circumstances established that no infirmity and perversity in impugned judgment of acquittal had been found, thus appeal against acquittal was dismissed---Further prosecution failed to prove the charge against the co-convict, thus appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

IMRAN TAJ GICHKI vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 1075 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR