Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 34,10,109,420

Law: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947

Section: 5,5(2)

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 103,161,265-K,342,382-B

Law: Railways Act, 1890

Section: 114

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 420, 109 & 34---Railways Act (IX of 1890), S. 114---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5---Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, abetment, common intention, sell or attempt to sell railway ticket unauthorizedly, illegal gratification---Appreciation of evidence--- Delay of about two days in lodging the FIR--- Effect--- Investigating Officer had admitted in his cross-examination that the FIR was lodged after a delay of about three days--- No explanation had been offered by the prosecution for such delay--- Possibility of false implication of the accused person, in circumstances could not be excluded from consideration. Ayub Masih v. The State PLD 2002 SC 1048 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 420, 109 & 34---Railways Act (IX of 1890), S.114---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5---Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, abetment, common intention, sell or attempt to sell railway ticket unauthorizedly, illegal gratification---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused persons were allegedly involved in black marketing railway tickets---Record showed that prosecution witness/head of raiding party was not officially assigned the duty to conduct surprise visit/raid as no such letter/document had been produced by her during the course of her evidence---Said witness had admitted during the course of evidence that she did not specifically state in her statement recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C. as to which of the accused had given her the tickets and which one had received the amount from her---Admittedly, she did not give denomination of the notes which she had given to the accused for tickets---Witness had admitted that she did not inform the concerned SHO about her visit/checking about the black marketing of the tickets---Obviously she did not know the names of the accused persons prior to the incident nor in her deposition she had mentioned their names---Prosecution was bound to get the identification parade of the accused persons conducted as required under Art. 22 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---First Information Report was lodged by District…

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