Sections 409 and 420 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), section 5 (2) criminal breach of trust, defrauding of fraud and corroborating evidence previously stated that the accused was allegedly involved in a robbery at a utility store. The incident took place and in connection with the FIR, the crime was registered, but said the investigation was pending but the Investigation Authority could not ascertain the fact that there was a stock shortage in the utility store. Determined, it was necessary for the prosecution to establish that the shortage was due to the prosecution. In this connection it was investigated that the possession of the accused had no effect on the recovery or stock of the money, nor was it attempted, nor was any material collected in this connection when the accused was in police custody. I was, when audits and stocks checked. In his absence, alleged fake bank slips were also recovered when the accused was not present on the site, the trial court failed to properly assess the contents but, on the relevant dates, the prosecution in connection with the arrest of the accused police. The testimony of the witness was demonstrated by the negligence, in which part of the prosecution revealed Malala's utility, which required the extension of the accused's guilt, albeit on charges of criminal confidence violation. Government employee and criminal misconduct were emphasized, but the prosecution failed to reliably release both charges against the accused, while in view of the material found to be non-bailable on record under section 2020, P.P. C was made, while the benefit of the doubt was raised in favor of the accused
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2010
