| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 2314 2026 SLD 2314 = 2026 MLD 374 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2021, decided on 9th October, 2025.
Presented By: Syed Fiaz-ul-Hassan Shah, J
Abdul Majeed v. The State 2011 SCMR 941 rel. Munir Ahmed Malik, Ghulam Murtaza and Harchand Rai for Appellant. Ms. Seema Zaidi, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2021, decided on 9th October, 2025.
Presented By: Syed Fiaz-ul-Hassan Shah, J
Abdul Majeed v. The State 2011 SCMR 941 rel. Munir Ahmed Malik, Ghulam Murtaza and Harchand Rai for Appellant. Ms. Seema Zaidi, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State.
MUHAMMAD AKRAM---Appellant
VERSUS
The STATE---Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 161, 420, 468, 471, 34
Law: Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)
Section: 5(2)
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 161, 420, 468, 471 & 34---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act, cheating and dishonestly inducing someone to deliver property, forgery for the purpose of cheating, use of a forged document as genuine, common intention, criminal misconduct---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that the accused-appellant in collusion with other accused provided fake allotment letter for construction of a cabin to the complainant, after receiving illegal gratification of Rs. 4,50,000/=---Record showed that complainant, in his evidence, had directly involved the deceased/co-accused for payment of bribe of Rs. 4,50,000/- as well as Rs. 50,000/- and receiving the fake allotment orders from the said deceased co-accused---Complainant had not produced a single evidence against the present appellant with regard the receiving of bribe demand or collection nor any dealing or connection with regard to preparation/handing over of the fake allotments orders---Evidence of prosecution witness, brother of the complainant, also confirmed that his brother had informed that it was the deceased co-accused, who had given some alternate allotment order---Other witness contradicted the evidence of complainant---Said witness deposed that co-accused had received Rs. 3,00,000/- while complainant had paid further Rs. 3,00,000/- to the present appellant---Such evidence was not only in deviation with the quantum of bribe of amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- but also contrary to the evidence of complainant/victim and had been shaken during cross-examination---Thus, it had been established that whatever bribe money as claimed by the prosecution had been paid was directly paid to the deceased/co-accused as had been confirmed by complainant and his brother during his evidence on oath---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 161, 420, 468, 471 & 34---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an…