Case Details

Citation(s)
2014 SLG 148 2014 SLD 148 2014 SCMR 985
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No.73 of 2013, decision dated: 12-03-2014. (On appeal from the judgment dated 18-12-2012 passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in Criminal Ehtesaab Appeal No.26 of 2001)
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, HC.J., KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN AND SH. AZMAT SAEED, JJ
Wasim Sajjad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Mehmood Raza, Additional P.G. NAB for
Respondent

WAHID BAKHSH BALOCH

VS

The STATE

Law: National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Section: 9(a)(vi),10(a)

(a) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of -1999)--- ----S. 9(a)(vi)---Misuse of authority---Burden of proof---Initial burden was on the prosecution to prove that the accused was guilty of the offence for which he was being charged. Pir Mazharul Haq v. State PLD 2005 SC 63 and M. Anwar Saifullah Khan v. State PLD 2002 Lah. 458 ref. (b) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of -1999)--- ----Ss. 9(a)(vi) & 10(a)---Misuse of authority---Reappraisal of evidence---Allegation based on statement of witness and not corroborated by any documentary evidence---Prosecution failing to discharge its initial burden of proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt---Effect---Allegation against accused was that in his capacity as Deputy Commissioner he asked a sub-engineer in the Municipal Committee to make an incorrect (reduced) assessment of the value of State land and got the same allotted in favour of the co-accused---Accountability Court convicted accused under S. 10(a) of National Accountability Ordinance, -1999 and sentenced him to six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.25,000---Appeal filed by accused before the High Court was also dismissed---Validity---Only evidence to prove mens rea of accused was the statement of the sub-engineer, who alleged that he initially assessed the value of land as Rs. 150 per sqft. but it was at the asking of the accused that he reduced it to Rs.30 per sqft.---Sub-engineer admitted in his cross-examination that he never gave it in writing that property was valued at Rs. 150 per sqft.---Sub-engineer stated that he assessed the value of subject property after assessing the value of adjacent properties but admitted that adjoining properties were never assessed as none was sold---No question was put to the accused by the prosecution about the property being assessed at the rate of Rs.150 per sqft. at his asking, or about any pecuniary benefit that he derived from the said transaction, or about the fact that property was owned by Revenue department and not the Municipal Committee---Statement of sub-engineer regarding value of property was not corroborated nor was there any documentary evidence---Prosecution had failed to discharge…
🔒
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