| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1984 SLG 382 1984 SLD 382 1984 PLD 315 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No 353 of 1972, decided on 26th March, 1984. DATE of hearing : 12th March, 1984
RIAZ AHMAD, J
Ch. QamarudDin Meo for the State. Sh. Nisar Qutab for
Respondent
Criminal Appeal No 353 of 1972, decided on 26th March, 1984. DATE of hearing : 12th March, 1984
RIAZ AHMAD, J
Ch. QamarudDin Meo for the State. Sh. Nisar Qutab for
Respondent
STATE--Appellant
VS
TAUQIR HUSSAIN--Respondent
Law:
Section:
(a) Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947)- -- S. 5 (2)-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161-Appraisal of evidence-Inconsistent statement of complainant-Lack of corroboration and failure of prosecution to produce official who watched transaction-Police official accompanying raiding party also not produced by prosecution-Acquittal of accused, held, justified being based on cogent and sound reasons and in accordance with established principles governing appraisal of evidence in criminal cases. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- ---- S. 417 - Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5 (2}-Penal (XLV of 1860), S. 161-Appeal against acquittal-Interference in acquittal not open unless view formed by trial Court in support of acquittal was perverse, causing failure or miscarriage of justice-Merely because another view could be formed on basis of evidence on record cannot be ground for interference-Principles governing interference in an acquittal, stated. It is not open to interfere in an acquittal, merely because another view can be formed on the basis of the evidence on the record of a case, unless the view formed in support of acquittal is perverse, causing failure or miscarriage of justice. In appeal against the acquittal, the entire evidence has to be re-assessed, with a view to find out whether the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court is in accord with the settled principles governing administration of criminal justice. It has to be further seen that the acquittal is not based upon the misreading of the evidence, or upon such error which would speak for itself. Billu alias Inayatullah v. The State P L D 1979 S C 934 fol. Abdul Majid v. Superindendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Government of East Pakistan P L D 1964 S C 422; Ghulam Muhammad v. Muhammad Sharif and another P L D 1969 S C 398 ; Ahmad v. The Crown P L D 1951 F C 107 ; Faizullah Khan v. The State 1.972 S C M k 672 ; Qazi Rahman Gul v. The State 1970 S C M R 755 ; Gul Nawaz v. The State 1968 S C M R 1168 ; Khahd Saigol v. The State P L D 1962 S C 495 and Abdur Rashid v. The State 1971 S C M R 521 ref. (c) Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)- -- Ss. 4 & 5 (2)-Penal…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492