Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973

Section: 188

Law: Supreme Court Rules, 1980

Section: 1

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 409, 420,468,471

Law: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947

Section: 5(2)

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section: 342,382-B

Summary The Supreme Court allowed Dr. Waqar Hameed’s criminal review petition after finding that his conviction was based on serious legal and evidentiary defects. The prosecution failed to prove entrustment, dishonest misappropriation, authorship of the disputed signatures, the complete chain of fraudulent withdrawal, and the statutory ingredients of criminal misconduct. The Court also noted that material incriminating circumstances were not put to the petitioner under Section 342 Cr.P.C., while his co-accused had been acquitted on the same evidence. Finding that the majority judgment had overlooked material issues and caused a miscarriage of justice, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the petitioner by extending the benefit of doubt. Core Points The petitioner was originally convicted under Section 409 PPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He was acquitted of the charges under Sections 420, 468 and 471 PPC by the trial Court. The High Court maintained the petitioner’s conviction but acquitted his co-accused on the benefit of doubt. The prosecution failed to prove that the salary amount had been entrusted to, or was under the dominion of, the petitioner. The alleged signatures on the challan were not examined by a handwriting or forensic expert. The prosecution did not prove who obtained the treasury token, presented the documents, withdrew the money, or received the amount. Material incriminating circumstances were not put to the petitioner during examination under Section 342 Cr.P.C. The Courts below did not independently establish the ingredients of criminal misconduct under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The acquittal of the co-accused on the same evidence raised an important issue of consistency and parity. The Supreme Court held that the errors were apparent on the face of the record and resulted in manifest miscarriage of justice. The review petition was allowed, the judgments of the Courts below were set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt. Relevant Law and Sections Law / Provision Subject Legal principle or application Article 188,…