| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 1246 2019 SLD 1246 2019 MLD 841 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 201 and 219 of 2015, decision & hearing Dated: 19-12-2017.
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, JUSTICE ZULFIQAR AHMED KHAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Shahid Mushtaq (in Appeal No.201 of 2015).
Respondent(s) by: Ms. Naheed Parveen, D.A.G.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 201 and 219 of 2015, decision & hearing Dated: 19-12-2017.
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, JUSTICE ZULFIQAR AHMED KHAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Shahid Mushtaq (in Appeal No.201 of 2015).
Respondent(s) by: Ms. Naheed Parveen, D.A.G.
JAVEED IBRAHIM
VS
THE STATE
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 342(1),423(1)(a),426,439,439(1)(2),497
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 497 & 426---Bail, grant of---Suspension of sentence---Case of further inquiry---Misreading and non-reading of evidence---Trial Court convicted accused persons and on basis of same evidence, acquitted two co-accused persons---Plea raised by accused persons was that of Trial Court was prima facie result of misreading and non-reading of available material---Validity---Evidence/material was not appreciated properly while convicting accused persons and acquitting those who otherwise were found guilty in internal inquiry and were charged with main allegations in FIR---High Court suspended sentence as prima facie of conviction opened room for further inquiry because Ss. 497 and 426, Cr.P.C. were analogous to each other---Bail was allowed accordingly. Nazir Ahmed and another v. State and others PLD 2014 SC 241 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 439---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Principle---Such jurisdiction is never dependent upon written application but notice of patent illegality or excess of jurisdiction is sufficient. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J.--- At the outset learned counsel for appellant has referred pages Nos.17 to 19 of impugned judgment dated 24.08.2015, relevant paragraph is reproduced herewith:-- "Over all evidence brought on record as discussed above shows that the allegations against the accused are that the accused Syed Kaleem Ahmed had obtained cash of Rs.298400/- from PW Mumtaz for credit in the account of Zulfiqar account holder but it was deposited in his account but the said amount was debited in the account of Zulfiqar from the joint account of PW Muhammad Hassan Salahuddin and the amount of Rs.2850000/- and Rs.26 lacs were credited through transfer entries from the joint account of PW Muhammad Hassan Salahuddin to the account of the accused Muhammad Shakir and the same were withdrawn by the accused Syed Kaleem Ahmed and that cheque book of Muhammad Hassan Salahuddin was processed and issued by Syed Fayaz CSO by using his ID who has been retired and evidence shows that from the said cheque book of the joint account of PW Muhammad Hassan…
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