Section 409 Corruption Prevention Act (II of 1947), Section 5 Criminal breach of trust by public servants, accusations of corroborating evidence corroborating suspicion, was accused of misappropriating money, but when the parcel opened. If so, how was it possible to determine if the accused had misused the money, especially when the prosecution had not presented any evidence relating to the tampering on the parcel? The prosecution in question was not permanent. The collection of parcel prosecution witnesses, in whose presence the parcel was opened, did not say a word when the parcel was received by the Treasury, or when it was received by the complainant. Or when it was opened in the presence of the prosecutor's witness, and the complainant's case had already been settled or the stampede was sealed on the same prosecution, he would be on his own foot to prove the charges against the accused. Was to stand, but in the present case no evidence was presented by the prosecution to prove that the allegation was of a parcel in which the accused had used the money illegally, the prosecution argued beyond reasonable doubt. Did not prove, even a reasonable doubt raises suspicion about the culprit of the accused; Enough to take away and the allegations could not be proved on the basis of the allegations, the prosecutor's duty was to establish his case against the accused by means of objective, convincing and credible evidence, which is free from any speculation. , In which it was alleged. Was entitled to the benefit of the doubt, the matter of truth and not
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
