AHMED NAWAZ SOLANGI versus COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE-ANTI-CORRUPTION (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD
Section 497 Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Sections 409 and 109 of the Corruption Act (III of 1947), Section 5 (2) criminal breach of trust by public servants, rape, criminal misconduct, grants of accused The complainant allegedly forced a contractor to pay government contracts / bribes, to support the bribe payment, two statements of the prosecution's witnesses were recorded, however, such statements were contracted. / Complainant's version was inconsistent and the amount of alleged bribe was materially different as well as the location of the incident. The prosecution's witnesses were either contractors and / or employees of their friends, so they were not independent witnesses because the crime allegedly involved the misappropriation of funds and award of contracts, so the prosecutor was responsible for at least Offer some records. Documentary Prosecution for Invading Suspects, however, could not bring any documentary evidence to the record In addition to the oral statements of prosecutors' witnesses, two individuals who allegedly inked a check for bribe money, or Was not included as an accused or witness and no statement of the persons mentioned under Section 161 was filed after the delay in the PRFIR. For 5 years without any reason, so the prosecution case became suspicious, the case against the accused did not come under the prohibited clause of section 497 (1); CRPC was granted bail on all the accused.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
