Case Details

Citation(s)
2001 SLG 2821 2001 SLD 2821 2001 PLD 24
Sindh High Court
Appeal No. 18 of 2000, decided on 30th August, DATE of hearing: 17th May, 2001.
S. AHMED SARWANA AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ
Fahim Riaz Siddiqui for Appellant. Muhammad Anwar Tariq, DPGA and Aamir Raza Naqvi for the State.

P L D 2002 Karachi 24 M. SIDDIQUEULFAROOQI

VS

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) National Accountability Bureau Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)--- ----Ss. 10(a)/9(a)(vi)---Appreciation of evidence---Accused had made all the appointments on merit offering reasonable salary in accordance with the policy already in existence prior to his appointment as Managing Director of House Building Finance Corporation, in the interest of day-to-day working of the Institution against the existing vacancies which had been approved even after the arrest of the accused and during the present Government--­Prosecution had failed to establish that the accused had made any appointment to gain benefit or favour for himself or .any other person and that any wrongful loss was caused to the Government exchequer with the appointments made by him on contract or daily wages basis---Head of a Department or an Institution might sometimes exceed his normal administrative powers in the interest of the Institution and under some wrong impression about his authority on the basis of a practice in vogue or on account of a policy framed by the predecessors and continuance thereof without any objection, more particularly when it was in the interest of smooth working of the Institution---Every such irregularity was not to be treated as misuse of authority and particularly same was not to be treated as a criminal offence---Prosecution had, thus, failed to establish the commission of offence as defined in S.9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 by the accused and consequently he was acquitted of the charge. (b) Criminal trial-- ----Conviction---Prosecution for getting conviction of an accused is required to establish beyond reasonable doubt all the ingredients constituting the offence and any lacuna, infirmity or doubt appearing in the case has always to be resolved in favour of the accused. (c) National Accountability Bureau Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)--- ----S. 10(a)---Mere irregularity on the part of accused not sufficient to constitute the offence---Irregular use of authority may attract disciplinary action under the Service Rules, but in order to establish the offence of corruption and corrupt practices mere irregularity on the part of holder of a public…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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