Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 2733 2004 SLD 2733 2004 PLD 210
Sindh High Court
Criminal Accountability Appeals Nos. 71 to 74 of 2002, decided on 5th June, 2003, dates of hearing: 4th and 5th June, 2003.
ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ
Ali Ahmed Junejo for Appellants. Muhammad Anwar Tariq, DPGA, NAB for
Respondent.

GHULAM QADIR MAHESAR and others

VS

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)--- ----Ss. 9/10 & 14---Appreciation of evidence---No substantive and reliable evidence had come on record to show involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime for which they had been charged---Availability of a private "Chowkidar" at the two centres had been concocted by the prosecution to improve its case and conviction of accused by Trial Court on such shabby evidence in complete disregard of the settled principles of law for weighing the evidence of witnesses had resulted in gross miscarriage of justice---Basic burden of proof having not been discharged satisfactorily by the prosecution, no adverse presumption could have been drawn against the accused as regards shifting of onus to them to disprove the allegations as contemplated under S.14 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999---Accused had even placed on record the receipts for supply of wheat at the Wheat Procurement Centres to negate the case of prosecution---Where Government Officers were found corrupt and dishonest, then for their corruption and malpractice, others against whom no involvement was proved, could not be made scapegoat or penalized---Accused were acquitted in circumstances. Abdul Aziz Memon v. The State 2003 YLR 617 and Syed Ali Nawaz Shah v. The State PLD 2003 SC 837 ref. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Witness---Appreciation of evidence--Court while weighing the evidence in a criminal case has to see whether the witness is a natural witness, a chance witness or a stranger and whether the facts deposed by him are from his personal knowledge or merely hearsay. (c) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)--- ----S. 14---Presumption against accused---Burden of proof---Concept elucidated---Basic onus, according to the fundamental rule of criminal administration of justice, always rests on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused and the special provision can neither be construed to mean that the said onus of the prosecution is shifted to the accused to prove his innocence, nor a presumption of guilt can be raised against him without discharge of initial burden by the prosecution---Only exception to the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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