FAIZ MUHAMMAD JAFFAR versus THE STATE THROUGH NAB, QUETTA
Section 9 (a) (iv) (vi) and 14 (a) definition of evidence by methods of corruption and corruption The commission paid the crime of exchange, the principle of applicable prosecution alleged that the accused received the commission and without any Issued payment to supply contractors. The accused were convicted by the trial court and sentenced to life imprisonment on different terms. The trial court heard that the accused persons had testified that the prosecution's witnesses had paid the commission, which was illegal themselves, so they were partners. The record was brought down which could shake up the intrinsic value of their statements, even the witnesses were not charged with any ill will or misconduct because they were accused of perpetrating the crime because the witnesses Paid the commission, which was illegal, it was not enough to deny their direct and trustworthy evidence All witnesses dismissed him on refusal of compensation NT commission, suspects withheld checks Such witnesses, as they were obliged to pay the commission, were charged with the consent of the parties to the commission. Can't be declared a partner, after specific allegations related to the commission / bribe payment to the accused, Section 14 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, moved to prove that he had legal compensation. Accepted or consoled as a motive or reward other than that, it is alleged that he failed to discharge his duty and was denied any such commission only, according to the prosecution's witnesses. Did not believe in the form of statements in light of the overwhelming evidence
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2012
