The Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), Section 5 (1) (c) criminal record of trust by public servants and the appreciation of criminal mismanagement evidence did not indicate from the record that the accused did not The valuable documents were removed from the file. One of the things that happened to a civil servant was in the performance of public duty. No personal interest of the accused was on the record to prove his dishonesty or misconduct; the prosecution had failed to convict any of the men again. It has been alleged that the accused did not receive any financial benefit from the case. It did not show that the accused had taken the wrong papers in the wrong place to wrongfully take favor of a party or harm a party. Were put on All witnesses and defendants joined in the investigation together with the Magistrate / Officer-in-Charge, the Judicial Record Room, which was told that there could be liability for the loss of the file, and the department's inquiry was not settled on the culprits of any individual. It could not be based solely on the allegation that it obtained the copy from the branch branch on a specific date without counting the file papers, during which it was not proved that the file was in the exclusive possession of the accused. The relevant prosecutor also failed to prove that the missing papers were retained or recovered by the accused, leaving the suspect with the benefit of the doubt in the circumstances.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
