Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 2615 2018 SLD 2615 2018 PCRLJ 1495
Lahore High Court
Cr. A. No. 105 of 2014, decision & hearing Dated: 31-05-2018.
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JUSTICE SARDAR AHMED NAEEM, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Azam Nazeer Tarar and Mazhar Ali Gahloon
Respondent(s) by: Ch. Muhammad Jahangir Wahla, Deputy Attorney-General Muhammad Ahsan Boon for the Complainant.

RASHEED AKBAR KHAN

VS

THE STATE AND ANOTHER

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 465,468,471

Law: Representation of the People Act, 1976

Section: 78,82

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 465, 468 & 471---Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976), Ss.78 & 82---Forgery, forgery for purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document---Corrupt practice in elections---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused had filed his nomination papers to contest General Elections, 2002 with allegedly false B.A. degree, attested by co-accused---Trial Court seized with the matter convicted and sentenced the accused---Original B.A. degree, photocopy of which was allegedly annexed by accused with his nomination papers, was neither brought on record during the course of investigation nor was exhibited during the proceedings---Photocopy being secondary evidence, was inadmissible and was not proved in accordance with law---Person relying on a document was obliged to prove the same---Photocopy could not be read in evidence to record conviction against accused---Roll number and year of passing B.A. examination, were not mentioned in the nomination papers---Nothing was available on record as to from where the complainant had obtained the information---Said aspect alone, would create flaw in the authenticity of the prosecution version---Prosecution evidence to the extent of co-accused was disbelieved and he was acquitted of the charge on the same set of evidence---Accused along with his brother, was being prosecuted by the complainant in the other FIR for the similar offence and with the same allegation---Present case as well as the other case, were tried by the same Trial Court and the same evidence was recorded almost on the same dates of hearing---Except few variations in the statements of the witnesses, evidence was not recorded independently in each case---Stereotype based on same type of evidence had been delivered by the Trial Court in both the cases, which had vitiated the proceedings against accused---Such practice was not only against the very spirit of law, but against the principles of natural justice---Conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, were not proper and same could not sustain---Prosecution had failed to establish its case against accused beyond reasonable…
🔒
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