| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 1033 2022 SLD 1033 2022 SCMR 998 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition No. 91-K of 2020, decision Dated: 09-02-2022, Date of hearing: 09-02-2022. (On appeal against the judgment Dated 12.05.2020 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 2019)
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JUSTICE, SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JUSTICE, JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, JUSTICE
Anis Muhammad Shahzad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Hussain Bux Baloch, Additional P.G. Sindh for the State.
Criminal Petition No. 91-K of 2020, decision Dated: 09-02-2022, Date of hearing: 09-02-2022. (On appeal against the judgment Dated 12.05.2020 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 2019)
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JUSTICE, SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JUSTICE, JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, JUSTICE
Anis Muhammad Shahzad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Hussain Bux Baloch, Additional P.G. Sindh for the State.
MUHAMMAD SAMIULLAH
VS
THE STATE
Law: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section: 5(2)
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 61,84
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 409
(a) Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)-----S. 5(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 409---Misappropriation of machinery/equipment by government employee---Reappraisal of evidence---Lack of direct evidence---Record reflected that there was no direct evidence available on the record, which could connect the accused with the commission of the crime---Prosecution’s case mainly hinged upon the testimonies of four prosecution witnesses, who belonged to the same department as the accused---Crux of the testimonies of the said four witnesses was that during the inquiry proceedings the accused had confessed his guilt and had submitted an application seeking time to return the articles---However, a specific question in that regard was put to the accused while recording his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. but he categorically denied the filing of any such application or his signatures on the said application---Neither the disputed signatures of the accused were sent to the handwriting expert nor the forensic test of the same was done to get them verified in a scientific manner and the Trial Court of its own compared the admitted signatures of the accused with the disputed signatures on the alleged application filed by him---At the time of registration of the crime report neither the inventory of the alleged stolen articles nor their description was given --- Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused was acquitted of the charge. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 84---Power of Trial Court to compare signatures on disputed documents---Scope---Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 empowers the Courts to compare the disputed signatures in order to ascertain whether the same is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made---However, in matters where no direct evidence is available and the prosecution case exclusively rests on indirect evidence or where the prosecution’s case is solely based upon the alleged admission of the accused then as an abundant caution the Courts while convicting an accused must adopt the safest way, which furthers the true spirit behind the safe administration of…
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