Case Details

Citation(s)
2003 SLG 3413 2003 SLD 3413 2003 PLD 56
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeals No. 276 and 280 of 1998, decided on 31st October, 2002.
SH. RIAZ AHMAD, C.J., MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL AND MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JJ
Fakhar-ud-Din G. Ebrahim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Naraindas C. Motiani, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. 276 of 1998). Raja Muhammad Irshad, Dy. A.G. Pak. for the State (in Criminal Appeal No. 276 of 1998). .

VIJANT KUMAR and 4 others

VS

STATE through Chief Ehtesab Commissioner, Islamabad court and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Criminal trial--- ---- Burden of proof---Initial onus of proving the charge is always on the prosecution and it shifts to the accused only in a special situation. (b) Ehtesab Act (IX of 1997)--- ----Ss. 8/3---Presumption against accused---Presumption of guilt can only be raised in a case in which prosecution has proved that the accused has accepted, or obtained or agreed to accept and obtain for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration---Use of word "proved" cannot be equated with mere suspicion to raise the presumption of guilt. (c) Ehtesab Act (IX of 1997)--- ----Ss. 3/4 & 8---Appraisal of evidence---Prosecution had failed to prove even the basic element of mens rea and intention to commit the crime against the accused in order to raise the presumption of guilt against him---Court before raising a presumption of guilt to fix the criminal liability must ensure itself that the initial burden of proving the charge by the prosecution was satisfactorily discharged---No material evidence had been brought on record in support of personal gain or interest of the accused Minister to raise a ligitimate presumption that the contract was granted for some personal consideration---Trial Court keeping in view the grant of contract through negotiations for less amount to that of upset price had raised a presumption of guilt without taking notice of the important fact that no one had turned up in the auction to make an offer even equal to the estimated upset price what to speak of the higher offer---Estimated upset price, therefore, was not relevant to calculate the loss---Accused under the advice of the Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development had approved the contract in good faith without any personal interest or financial gain---Failure of the Administrator of the local body and the said Secretary to discharge their duty of tendering the proper advice would make them equally responsible for the loss, if any, but none of them was either arrayed as accused in the Reference or examined as a witness to establish that the Minister either acted against their advice or the grant of contract through negotiation was made for…
🔒
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