| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 1131 2021 SLD 1131 2021 SCMR 1844 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 4878 of 2021, decided on 6th September, 2021, Date of hearing: 6th September, 2021. (On appeal against the judgment Dated 26.07.2021 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in C.P. No. D-3045 of 2021)
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE, MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, JUSTICE, SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JUSTICE
Abdul Shakoor Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court, Haseeb Shakoor Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondent.
Civil Petition No. 4878 of 2021, decided on 6th September, 2021, Date of hearing: 6th September, 2021. (On appeal against the judgment Dated 26.07.2021 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in C.P. No. D-3045 of 2021)
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE, MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, JUSTICE, SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JUSTICE
Abdul Shakoor Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court, Haseeb Shakoor Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondent.
ASIM MURTAZA KHAN
VS
THE STATE THROUGH CHAIRMAN NAB, ISLAMABAD
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 94
Law: National Accountability Ordinance, 1999
Section: 9
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 94---National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), S. 9---State owned company (the company)---Misappropriation, corruption and fraud---Documents produced during trial by an employee (prosecution witness) of the company---Admissibility of documents---Whether authorization from Board of Directors of the company was required for producing the documents---Plea on behalf of accused that the witness in question was not properly authorized by the company, therefore, the documents produced by him should not be exhibited and were inadmissible in evidence---In such regard accused filed an application under S. 94, Cr.P.C., but the same was dismissed by the trial Court and also by the High Court---Held, that in a criminal case, the production of evidence was to be considered on the touchstone of respective law pertaining to the collection and production of evidence in a criminal case for which S. 94 of Cr.P.C. was relevant---High Court had rightly held that there was no need for the investigators to seek any authorization for production and seizure of record even from a court if the collection and seizure was needed from a company other than a banking company and admittedly the company in question was nota banking company---Supreme Court directed that the trial Court shall decide the disputed question regarding authorization and admissibility of evidence; that trial Court shall hear the objections of the accused and the other side and decide the same in accordance with law, and shall proceed with the trial expeditiously. Hayatullah v. State 2018 SCMR 2092 distinguished. JUDGMENT SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.--- Through this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 26.07.2021 passed by the learned High Court of Sindh whereby the Constitution Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order of the learned Trial Court dated 22.04.2021 was affirmed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that the petitioner was Managing Director of Pakistan Petroleum Limited. On account of the alleged misappropriation,…
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