Case Details

Citation(s)
2022 SLG 2078 2022 SLD 2078 2022 YLR 544
Sindh High Court
Criminal Accountability Appeals Nos. 3 to 7, 12 andConstitutional Petition No.D-2483 of 2021, decided on 15thOctober, 2021. Dates of hearing: 31st, August, 8th, 16th,23rd, 24th and 28th September, 2021.
MUHAMMAD IQBAL KALHORO AND SHAMSUDDIN ABBASI, JJ
Khawaja Shamsul Islam along with Amjad Ali Shah for Appellants (in Criminal Accountability Appeal No. 03 of 2021). Obaid-ur-Rehman for Appellants (in Criminal Accountability Appeal No.04 of 2021). Obaid-ur-Rehman for Appellants (in Criminal Accountability

NISAR AHMED MORAI and othersvsNATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU through Chairman

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 342

Law: National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Section: 9(a)(vi),10

(a) Criminal trial--- ----Discrimination---Scope--- Challenging prosecution on the ground of discrimination cannot be complete valid defence to absolve an accused from criminal liability arising from his actions or inactions---Any person charged for an offence is answerable for his own acts or omissions and has to defend him in trial for the offence with which he has been charged. (b) Criminal trial--- ----False implication--- Proof--- Mere saying that accused has falsely been implicated in case without specifying any enmity, ill-will of personal grudge, is not sufficient to prove innocence particularly when prosecution witnesses were consistent and their evidence could not be shattered in cross-examination. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 342---Defence plea---Principle---If accused has a defence plea the same should be put to witnesses in cross-examination and then to put forward while recording statement under S.342, Cr.P.C. (d) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)--- ----Ss. 9(a)(vi) 10---Misuse of authority---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, quantum of---Principle of similarity and equality---Accused persons were alleged to have misused their authorities by making illegal appointments and awarding contracts---Trial Court convicted all accused persons and sentenced them variously---Validity---Prosecution had successfully proved charges of illegal appointments against one accused and awarding fake contracts to non-existent companies against all accused persons beyond shadow of any doubt---Accused persons failed to point out any material illegality or serious infirmity committed by Trial Court while passing ---Different sentences were awarded to different accused persons though offences were punishable under same provision of law prescribing same punishment for both without assigning valid reasons---Two probabilities exist one to enhance sentences of four years to seven years or reduce sentences of seven years to four years in respect of offences punishable under same provision of law---High Court under principle of similarity and equality and adopting proposition favouring accused persons, reduced sentence of seven years to…
🔒
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