Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 420, 468, 34

Law: Prevention of corruption Act, (II of 1947)

Section: 5(2)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 420/468/34‑‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act ill of 1947), S.5(2)‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Prosecuton had not impleaded any one of the accused persons in the F.I.R. and even the names of the accused were inserted by hand in the challan submitted before the Trial Court and the prosecution witnesses had not involved the accused in the case‑‑ Prosecution had not even examined the Magistrate before whom the confessional statements of the accused were recorded‑‑ Prosecution having failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, conviction and sentence awarded to him were set aside. Abdul Sattar v. The State PLD 1984 Pesh.146; Ali Anwar v. The State 1988 PCr.LJ 2107; The State v. Ilam Din and others 1986 PCr.LJ 2072 and Ashiq Hussain v. The State 1993 SCMR 417 ref. Date of hearing: 15th May, 2001.                                                                                                                                                JUDGMENT By this common judgment, I propose to dispose of the above six appeals as they arise out of common judgment and the parties to these cases are also the same. Briefly the facts of prosecution case are that during the month of March/April, 1989 appellant Rab Dino Shaikh serving as Assistant at Research Section Finance Department, Karachi by abuse of his official position, in collusion with co‑appellant Fayyzuddin, Headmaster, caused Muhammad Moin to make signatures of Rao Abdul Rasheed, Section Officer, Finance Department, Karachi on sanction order of Rs.62,568 for purchase of house by Shaikh Umer Daraz, Supervisor, Education Department with intention of causing it believed that the said sanction order has been signed by Rao Abdul. Rasheed and used the same as genuine and got paid the above amount as advance for…