| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 2275 2023 SLD 2275 2023 YLR 1887 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Accountability Appeals Nos.9 and 30 of 2015,decided on 13th September, 2022.Date of hearing: 13thSeptember, 2022.
Before Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar and Agha Faisal, JJ
Mehmood A. Qureshi and Shoukat Hayat for Appellants (in Criminal Accountability Appeal No. 9 of 2015). R.D. Kalhoro, Special Prosecutor NAB for the State (in Criminal Accountability Appeal No. 9 of 2015). R.D. Kalhoro, Special Prosecutor NAB for Appellant
Criminal Accountability Appeals Nos.9 and 30 of 2015,decided on 13th September, 2022.Date of hearing: 13thSeptember, 2022.
Before Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar and Agha Faisal, JJ
Mehmood A. Qureshi and Shoukat Hayat for Appellants (in Criminal Accountability Appeal No. 9 of 2015). R.D. Kalhoro, Special Prosecutor NAB for the State (in Criminal Accountability Appeal No. 9 of 2015). R.D. Kalhoro, Special Prosecutor NAB for Appellant
Syed ALI NAWAZ SHAH and 2 others---Appellants
VERSUS
The STATE---Respondent
Law: National Accountability Ordinance, 1999
Section: 9
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 353
(a) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)--- ----S. 9---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 47---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 353---Corruption and corrupt practices---Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, the truth of facts stated therein---Scope---Land of appellants along with others was compulsorily acquired for the construction of a project under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984---Prosecution case was that although the appellants and other accused were entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to some extent but they managed to obtain excess payments based on forged and fabricated Form-B---As a result, they were not entitled to such compensation---National Accountability Bureau (NAB) deemed this act as an offense of corruption and corrupt practices under S. 9(a)(iv) & (ix) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999---Accountability Court convicted the appellants---Validity---Trial Court while proceeding afresh against the appellants after remand of the matter by the Supreme Court, though re-examined prosecution's available witnesses, however, while doing so, neither the prosecution, nor the Trial Court brought on record the documents which were earlier exhibited by these witnesses in the earlier trial against the main/remaining accused---None of the alleged forged and fabricated Form-B or for that matter Form-VII, were brought in evidence---Not even in the earlier evidence---Since they were never produced, as such, were never referred to any hand writing expert---In such circumstances, when the very basic document which was alleged to be forged was never brought on record before the Trial Court, it could not have come to conclusion as to which of the forms were genuine and which were not---This was the entire basis of the allegation against the appellants; and once it was not produced before the trial Court, how could a person be convicted for such an offence was beyond comprehension---Procedure adopted by the Trial Court was not only irregular; but apparently was an illegality which could not be cured in any manner---Prosecution had failed to being any convincing material before…
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