Law: National Accountability Bureau Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)

Section: 14,10,9,18(g),24(b),9(a)(vi),14(d)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 13(b)

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 342,340(2),342(4),343,337,338

(a) National Accountability Bureau Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)--- ----Ss. 14, 10, 9, 18(g) & 24(b)---Presumption against accused ---Scope--­Mere fact that a person stood charged for trial in the Accountability Court would not give rise to a presumption of guilt in respect of S.14 of the Ordinance---Burden of proof, shifting of--Conditions---Term "reasonable" used in S.14(d) of National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999--­Connotation---Duty of the prosecution was to prove a prima facie case which was in accordance with the reason, not absurd, fair, proper, just, moderate and suitable under the circumstances---Principles---Unless the facts constituting misuse of authority as contemplated under S.9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 are established the accused cannot be called upon to prove his innocence within the meaning of S. 14(d) of the said Ordinance---Prosecution, in such a case would have to lead evidence against the accused and then he would be called upon to prove his innocence---Principles---Satisfaction of the Court---Concept. Section 14 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 deals with the presumption against the accused. According to section 14 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 if a person is charged under clause (vi) or clause (vii) of subsection (a) of section 9 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, it is the prosecution which shall first make out a reasonable case against the accused and the mere fact that a person stands charged for trial in the Accountability Court does not give rise to a presumption of guilt in respect of the above mentioned section of National Accountability Bureau Ordinance. In section 14(c) the legislature in its own wisdom has used words "unless the contrary is proved" which means the contrary can only be proved by accused if earlier something has been proved against him, that is, the burden shall shift to the accused to prove to the contrary if some case has been made out against him by the prosecution when the law raises a presumption against the accused and calls upon him to prove the contrary, the contrary cannot be said to be proved if the…

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