| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 2945 2016 SLD 2945 2016 YLR 2547 2016 PLJ 919 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 2011 and Writ Petition No. 6517 of 2015, heard on 27th April, 2016
MEHMOOD MAQBOOL BAJWA AND MIRZA VIQAS RAUF, JUSTICE
Muhammad Amjad Pervaiz for Appellant. Naeem Raza Hashmi for Petitioner (in W.P. No. 6517 of 2015). Arif Mehmood Rana, Special Prosecutor for NAB for
Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 2011 and Writ Petition No. 6517 of 2015, heard on 27th April, 2016
MEHMOOD MAQBOOL BAJWA AND MIRZA VIQAS RAUF, JUSTICE
Muhammad Amjad Pervaiz for Appellant. Naeem Raza Hashmi for Petitioner (in W.P. No. 6517 of 2015). Arif Mehmood Rana, Special Prosecutor for NAB for
Respondent.
MUHAMMAD IQBAL AHMAD
VS
THE STATE
Law: National Accountability Bureau Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)
Section: 9(a)(iv),32
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 342
National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)---.--- ---.---Ss.9(a)(iv) & 32---.---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.342---.---Assets beyond known sources of income---.---Appreciation of evidence---.---Condemned unheard---.---Statement of accused---.---Failure to put incriminating evidence to accused---.---Accused was holder of public office and he was convicted and sentenced by Trial Court for ten years imprisonment and fine, for holding assets beyond his known sources of income---.---Plea raised by accused was that material pieces of evidence were not put to accused for seeking his reply under S. 342, Cr.P.C.---.---Effect---.--W.hen accused was not confronted with allegations levelled against him and he was not put in a position to refute the same properly, he could not be saddled with criminal liability on the basis of such incriminating material---.---Such lapse on the part of prosecution was fatal and it had gone to the roots of the prosecution---.---Recording of statement under S. 342 Cr.P.C. was not a mere formality rather its primary object was to afford the accused opportunity of explaining the circumstances which were tending to incriminate and likely to influence the mind of Judge in arriving at a conclusion adverse to him---.---High Court set aside the conviction awarded to accused as there were material discrepancies and deficiencies in prosecution evidence---.---Even a single circumstance creating doubt regarding guilt of accused was sufficient to extend him the benefit of the same in shape of acquittal---.---High Court considered prosecution evidence insufficient and shaky and set aside the resulting into acquittal of accused---.---Appeal was allowed in circumstances. Khalid Aziz v. The State Criminal Appeal No.361 of 2001; The State v. Khalid Aziz Criminal Appeal No.362 of 2001, 2011 SCMR 136; Ghani-ur-Rehman v. National Accountability Bureau and others PLD 2011 SC 1144; Syed Ali Nawaz Shah and 2 others v. The State and others PLD 2003 SC 837 and Hakim Ali Zardari v. The State 2007 MLD 910 ref. Muhammad Nawaz and others v. The State and others 2016 SCMR 267 and Muhammad Shah v. The State (Criminal Appeal No.48/Q of 2009) 2010 SCMR…
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