Law:

Section:

(a) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)---------Ss.9(a)(v) & 14(c)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984). Art.2(4)--­Allegation of corruption and corrupt practices---Appreciation of evidence---Accused, holder of a public office, happened to he a landowner as well---Presumption against accused accepting illegal gratification--­Accused, in the present case, was convicted on the sole charge of acquisition of assets and properties disproportionate to his "known sources of income" within meaning of S.9(a)(v) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999---"Known sources of income"---Connotation and evidentiary requirements---Duty of Investigation Officer---Presumption of guilt against the accused under S.14 of the Ordinance---Mode and burden of proof---Principles---Statement of accused under S.342, Cr.P.C.--­Evidentiary value---Statement of Investigating Officer---Extent of admissibility and relevance---Prosecution, in the present case, though had failed to discharge the- initial burden of proof yet the Trial Court convicted the accused not on the basis of any piece of evidence indicating that the accused had properties which were not commensurate with his "known sources of income" brought on record but on an inference drawn by the Trial Court from mutations of exchange of property---Validity---Court could raise the presumption, when the prosecution had succeeded in discharging its initial burden of proof and the accused had failed to raise a :presumption "unless contrary was proved" that the accused was guilty of .the offence with which he had been charged---Mere denial by the accused in a statement under S:342, Cr.P.C. or even a plausible explanation would not be enough to Prove "the contrary" within meaning of S.14(c) of the National Accountability, Ordinance, 1999 pr to discharge the onus which stood shifted on the accused---Statement of the accused, nevertheless, could not be brusher aside---Combined effect of Ss.9(a)(v) & 14(c) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and,Art.2(4), Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 would be that the statement/plea of the accused would be considered and treated as evidence for rebutting the presumption…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492