Law:

Section:

P L D 1956 Supreme Court (Pak.) 300       Supreme Court-Criminal appeal-Reasons far inter ference-Serious discrepancies to evidence not having received necessary treatment in high Court Judgment.   Where in a case under section 161, P. P. C., there were serious discrepancies in evidence bearing upon the question of "motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act and these discrepancies had not received necessary treatment in the judgment of the High Court, there being more than enough room for reasonable doubt that any official act was involved the doing or not doing of which, depended upon the furnishing of the alleged gratification the conviction, in the last analysis of evidence, being base solely on an oral confession made to a Magistrate after the trap laid to arrest the accused-appellant, which confession was not put to the accused under section 342, Criminal P. C., the Supreme Court allowing the appeal acquitted the appellant.   Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342--Confession being sole support for conviction-Not put to accused-Prejudice --- Conviction set aside.   Since the sole support for the accusation of bribery against the accused proved upon analysis to consist in the alleged oral confession made to a Magistrate immediately after the trap laid to arrest him, it operated to the direct prejudice of the accused that he was never afforded an opportunity of explaining this circumstance appearing against him.   It was pointed out by the respondent's counsel that in the cross-examination of the Magistrate it was suggested that the accused was told by him that if he confessed he might be dealt with departmentally and from this it was sought to argue that thereby, an opportunity for an explanation had been offered to the accused.   Held, repelling the contention, that a question put in the course of cross-examination by counsel cannot have the same weight as an answer given by as accused person in reply to a pointed question bringing to his notice a matter raising an inference of guilt against him, and this applied with exceptional force where the matter consisted of an alleged direct…