Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 294 of 1983, heard on 27th October, 1984.

---S. 5(c)--Accused allegedly removing stamps from applications and misappropriating same--Accused having already been acquitted of charge under S. 409, P.P.C.--No direct/indirect evidence of commission of misconduct by accused within meaning of S. 5, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, available--No one seeing accused removing and disposing of stamps in any manner--Possibility of removal of stamps by anyone else not ruled out--Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted in circumstances.

Major Waheed-ud-Din for Appellant.

Muhammad Ali Naqvi for the State.

Date of hearing: 27th October, 1984.

This criminal appeal arises from the 'judgment of the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore, whereby he on 24-5-1983 convicted Akbar Ali appellant under section 5(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.5,000 and in default thereof to further R.I. for three months.

2. The appellant was posted as constable/ license clerk in the office of Superintendent Police, Traffic, Lahore. The charge against him was that he removed stamps worth Rs.20 from 228 applications and as such misappropriated stamps worth Rs.4,500. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced eight witnesses.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He produced two witnesses in his defence.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is no evidence of removal of stamps by the appellant. The learned counsel for the State has not controverted this submission.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties in the light of evidence on record. I find that the appellant has already been acquitted of the charge under section 409, P.P.C. that there is no direct/indirect evidence of the commission of misconduct by the appellant within the meaning of section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and that no one saw him removing or disposing of the stamps in any manner. In the circumstances, the possibility that the stamps might have been removed by someone else cannot be excluded.

7. For what has been stated above giving him the benefit of the doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge.

H . A . K Appeal accepted

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.