| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1998 SLG 1229 1998 SLD 1229 1998 PLD 86 |
Sindh High Court
Ehtesab Reference No. 2 of 1997, heard on 10th October,1997, Date of hearing: 10th October, 1997.
DR. GHOUS MUHAMMAD, JUSTICE
Abdullah Chandio, Special Prosecutor for Appellant.Shoukat Hussain Zubedi and Dara S. Shaikh for
Respondent No. 1.Hussain Shah Rashdi for
Respondent No.2Dr. Muhammad Farogh Naseem for
Respondent No. 3Aziz A. Malik, Akhtar Ali G. Kazi and Makhdoom
Ehtesab Reference No. 2 of 1997, heard on 10th October,1997, Date of hearing: 10th October, 1997.
DR. GHOUS MUHAMMAD, JUSTICE
Abdullah Chandio, Special Prosecutor for Appellant.Shoukat Hussain Zubedi and Dara S. Shaikh for
Respondent No. 1.Hussain Shah Rashdi for
Respondent No.2Dr. Muhammad Farogh Naseem for
Respondent No. 3Aziz A. Malik, Akhtar Ali G. Kazi and Makhdoom
THE State--AppellantVSNISAR AHMED KHORO AND OTHERS
Law:
Section:
(a) Ehtesab Act (IX of 1997 )--- ----Ss. 12 & 17---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.74 & 76---Secondary evidence---Admissibility---Essentials---Construction of building in violation of approved plan---Building Control Authority restraining owners from constructing such building in violation of approved plan---Owners submitting two letters from concerned Ministers to officials of Authority asking them not to restrain owner in raising construction and that approval would be accorded thereafter---Construction of building was, thus, completed in violation of approved plan---Owners alongwith two Ministers were challaned and their case sent to Ehtesab Bench---Original letters purported to be sent by Ministers were not traceable---Prosecution took no pains to fulfil requirements of Arts. 74 & 76, Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 for producing secondary evidence---None of prosecution witnesses claimed to have seen original letters---Photo copies of such letters would neither qualify as secondary evidence nor such letters fell within relevant categories specified in Art.74, Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984--Article 76, Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 has to be construed for purposes of admissibility of secondary evidence while Art.74, Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 would determine whether particular piece of evidence would qualify as secondary evidence---Person purported to have received such letters denied existence thereof---No evidence in rebuttal was produced by prosecution to prove that letters in fact were received by the concerned person---Unless loss of original was categorically proved, secondary evidence could not be led---Entire evidence relating to such letters was based on hearsay which could not be relied upon---Accused Ministers to whom such letters were attributed, thus, could not be convicted when neither original letters were placed on record nor secondary evidence relating thereto was led/produced, therefore, they were acquitted.--[Evidence]. Khursheed Begum v. Chiragh Muhammad 1995 SCMIZ 1237; Abdullah Khan v. Government of Sindh 1986 MLD 1500; Oriental Shipping Company Limited v. Panahghia Odigitria 1991 MLD 148; Jan Muhammad v. Abdul Ghaffar 1991 MLD 1631 and Taj Bibi…
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