Law: National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Section: XVIII,9,10

(a)    National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)-------Ss. 9 & 10---Corruption and corrupt practices---Appreciation of evidence--Prosecution case was that the accused were involved in misuse of their authority and misappropriation of government funds---From the perusal of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it seemed that out of eight witnesses, in the evidence of four witnesses, nowhere the name of accused/appellant was found mentioned, whereas two witnesses had made certain statements/admissions which were against the prosecution version and went in favour of the accused---In such view of the matter, it could safely be observed that the said two witnesses had not supported the case of prosecution so far as the allegations against appellant was concerned, rather their evidence supported the version of the accused /appellant---So far as the evidence of SubAccountant was concerned, although in his evidence he had stated that level one was used by Divisional Accounts Officer and accused as IDs were allotted to them by the Accountant General into the SAP System, however, in his cross-examination said witness had admitted in clear terms that firstly the said ID used to be applied by the office of DAO and thereafter the Divisional Accounts Officer used to apply his ID, meaning thereby that said ID was also in the knowledge and use of other persons working in the office of DAO---In such view of the matter, appellant alone, without inclusion of others, could not be held to be responsible for using the said ID for any illegal purpose as alleged---Said witness had also improved/exaggerated his statement recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. as he had himself admitted in his cross-examination that he did not state in his S.161 Cr.P.C. statement regarding the usage of level one by the then Divisional Accounts Officers whereas such fact had been stated by him in his deposition, which was fatal to the prosecution case---So far as the evidence of Investigating Officer was concerned, neither he was an eye-witness, nor was he working in the Highway Division but his evidence was based on the information given by the officials of Highway Division or…