Citation Name: 2025 YLR 342 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Nazar Muhammad vs State S

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

Citation Name: 2025 YLR 342 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Nazar Muhammad VS State S. 10---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 72 & 74---Corruption and corrupt practices---Appreciation of evidence---Documentary evidence---Photocopies---Proof of contents of documents---Primary evidence---Secondary evidence---Accused were charged for causing loss to Public Exchequer of an amount of Rs. 312.5 Million by revising the layout of the society, thus committing the offence of corruption and corrupt practices---Record showed that the original lay out plan was never exhibited in evidence or even seen by the Trial Court as admitted by Investigating Officer---Only an attested copy of the original lay out plan was exhibited---No reason was given as to why the prosecution was not able to exhibit the original lay out plan or even showed it to the Court and then return it as this was the usual practice---It was not known as to where the attested copy came from and its veracity remained unproven---Revised lay out plan was not exhibited at trial or even produced at Court for the Court to see---Not even an attested copy of the revised lay out plan was produced instead only an ordinary photo copy of the carbon copy was produced without any explanation as to why the original or even an attested copy of the revised lay out plan could not be produced---It was not known where the photocopy of carbon copy of the revised plan came from and its veracity also remained unproven---Under these circumstances said copy documents were inadmissible in evidence by virtue of Arts. 72 to 74 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and ought to have been excluded by the Trial Court from consideration---Thus both of those documents (copies of the original lay out plan and revised lay out plan) were inadmissible in evidence and were to be excluded from consideration as they remained unproven---Hence it was almost impossible to prove which areas were, if any, converted from amenity plots to commercial/residential plots or where they were relocated to within the society and whether it was in fact amenity plots which were sold to the beneficiary appellants---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2025 YLR 342 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Nazar Muhammad vs State S — 2025 YLR 342 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR