Muhammad Akram vs State Ss — 2026 MLD 374 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 Akram VS State Ss. 161, 420, 468, 471 & 34---Prevention of Corruption act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act, cheating and dishonestly inducing someone to deliver property, forgery for the purpose of cheating, use of a forged document as genuine, common intention, criminal misconduct---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions---Prosecution case was that the accused-appellant in collusion with other accused provided fake allotment letter for construction of a cabin to the complainant, after receiving illegal gratification of Rs. 4,50,000/=---Initially complainant had filed complaint against deceased/co-accused and present appellant before Senior Director Estate, Municipal Corporation and directly levelled allegations against appellant while mentioning that he had entered into sale agreement with co-accused deceasedagainst a sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- in the year 2007 and thereafter present appellant advised to bear further cost of Rs. 4,00,000/=---Second complaint moved by complainant was addressed to SHO Police Station, which was also at variance with previous contention---First version had been recorded that agreement was taken place with deceased co-accused and appellant against Rs.4,50,000/- and second version stated that after failure in the first agreement appellant demanded Rs.11,00,000/- for allotment order---Third version of the prosecution came in the FIR that appellant had demanded Rs.4,00,000/- against another canteen, out of which the complainant had paid Rs. 3,00,000/=---However, any of the version had not been confirmed by the complainant when he adduced his evidence standing in the witness box and on the contrary he had not deposed anything against the appellant---Both accused had died and entire case of demand of bribe and handed over fake allotment order was encircling around the deceased/co-accused and the prosecution had failed to prove its case in accordance with law---Trial Court had committed misreading and non-reading of recorded evidence coupled with the fact that no adverse inference could be drawn against the appellant, in view of lack of any connection with the commission of crime and absence of direct or indirect evidence against the appellant---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2026 MLD 374 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Muhammad Akram VS State Ss. 161, 420, 468, 471 & 34---Prevention of Corruption act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act, cheating and dishonestly inducing someone to deliver property, forgery for the purpose of cheating, use of a forged document as genuine, common intention, criminal misconduct---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that the accused-appellant in collusion with other accused provided fake allotment letter for construction of a cabin to the complainant, after receiving illegal gratification of Rs. 4,50,000/=---Record showed that complainant, in his evidence, had directly involved the deceased/co-accused for payment of bribe of Rs. 4,50,000/- as well as Rs. 50,000/- and receiving the fake allotment orders from the said deceased co-accused---Complainant had not produced a single evidence against the present appellant with regard the receiving of bribe demand or collection nor any dealing or connection with regard to preparation/handing over of the fake allotments orders---Evidence of prosecution witness, brother of the complainant, also confirmed that his brother had informed that it was the deceased co-accused, who had given some alternate allotment order---Other witness contradicted the evidence of complainant---Said witness deposed that co-accused had received Rs. 3,00,000/- while complainant had paid further Rs. 3,00,000/- to the present appellant---Such evidence was not only in deviation with the quantum of bribe of amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- but also contrary to the evidence of complainant/victim and had been shaken during cross-examination---Thus, it had been established that whatever bribe money as claimed by the prosecution had been paid was directly paid to the deceased/co-accused as had been confirmed by complainant and his brother during his evidence on oath---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Akram vs State Ss — 2026 MLD 374 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 MLD