Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD HAYAT and 2 others VS Respondent: THE STATE
Court Name: Peshawar High Court Judge(s): Muhammad Qaim Jan Khan, Talaat Qayyum Qureshi Title: MUHAMMAD HAYAT and 2 others vs THE STATE Case No.: Ehtesab Criminal Appeal No,9 of 2001 Date of Judgment:2002-05-15 Reported As: PLD 2002 Peshawar 118 Result: Appeal accepted
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT TALAAT QAYYUM QURESHI, J.---The Chairman National Accountability Bureau filed Reference No,3 of 2001 against Muhammad Hayat (Food Inspector), and his two brothers Gul Tayaz and Muhammad lqbal sons of Muhammad Ayaz for accumulating and amassing wealth, movable and immovable properties through corruption and corrupt practices under section 18(g) read with section 24 (b) of NAB Ordinance, 1999 for trial of above named appellants under sections 9/10 of the said Ordinance before learned Judge Accountability Court No,3, Peshawar. The learned trial Court indicted the accused on 26-3-2001 but they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 2. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses. The statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And they also produced 44 witnesses in their defence. The learned Judge Accountability Court No,3, N.-W.F.P. Peshawar vide judgment and order dated 10-8- 2001 convicted and sentenced the appellants. Muhammad Hayat appellant No,1 was sentenced to 5 years' R.I., fine of Rs,3,37,05,307, forfeiture of landed property, Motor Car No,B-1019, Motor Cycle No,LMB-15, profit of wheat carriage amounting to Rs,1,11,41,037, earning of the said business amounting to Rs,2,06,48,270 and Bank Accounts "in the name of Gul Tayaz mentioned in para.3 of the Reference" with direction to pay fine within one month failing which same to be set off against the forfeited property. And in default of payment of fine appellant to further undergo one year R.I. Gul Tayaz appellant No,2 and Muhammad Iqbal appellant No,3 were sentenced to 3 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,1,00,000 each in default of which one year further R.I. Each. All the three appellants were also disqualified for 10 years from holding any public office in terms of section 15 of the Ordinance. Aggrieved with the judgment/order the appellants have filed appeal in hand. 3. Mr. M. Sardar Khan, learned counsel for the appellants argued that under section 14(d) of the NAB Ordinance it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to make out a reasonable case against the appellants and in case the prosecution succeeded in making out a reasonable case to the satisfaction of Accountability Court, the prosecution would be deemed to have discharged the prima facie burden of proof and then the burden of proof would have been shifted to the appellants to rebut the presumption of
---
## Page 2
guilt. In the case in hand the prosecution has utterly failed to discharge the initial burden of proving the case against the appellants. It has also failed in making out any reasonable case against the appellants, to the satisfaction of the Court. Therefore, the impugned judgment is violative of the established principles of criminal jurisprudence. Reliance in this regard was placed on Khan Asfandyar Wali and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2001 SC 607), Mir Abdul Baqi Baluch v. The Government of Pakistan and others (PLD 1968 SC 313) and Syed Saeed Hassan v. Dayar Ali and others (PLD 1976 SC 6). 4. It was also argued that the prosecution has set up a false case against Muhammad Hayat Khan, appellant No,1. It has failed to prove any offence under clause (v) of section 9 of the NAB Ordinance. 1999. There is no evidence to show his involvement in corruption/corrupt practices and there is no evidence available on record to show that he ever misused his authority, acted dishonestly or adopted illegal means in order to accumulate movable and immovable properties, wealth and assets allegedly in the names of his brothers, the other two appellants and ladies (his mother, wife and sister-in-law) alleged as Banamidars. 5. It was also argued that the learned trial Court has misconstrued the meaning of "dependents" and "Benamidars". There is no evidence on record to show that Muhammad Hayat Khan appellant No,1 had acquired assets mentioned in the charge framed by the Court in the names of appellants Nos.2 and 3 and others. The learned trial Court has based its findings on presumptions, assumptions and conjectures, thereby treating appellants Nos.2 and 3 as dependents and Benamidars. 6. It was also argued that the learned trial Court it appears was under the impression that it was the duty of the appellants to prove that they were innocent. The learned trial Court has not treated and appreciated the defence evidence whereby the appellants had given reasonable explanation that the property owned by them were acquired through lawful means. It has failed to note that where there is a reasonable possibility that the accused defence might be true, such possibility re-acts on the whole case entitling the accused to acquittal. 7. Learned trial Court while discarding the strong defence evidence did not give cogent reasons. The appellants had in their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Explained their lawful means and had examined as many as 44 witnesses in their defence. There is sufficient documentary and oral evidence to prove the innocence of appellants but the same was not properly considered by the learned Court. Neither the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses not the statements of appellants recorded were given any weight. The learned trial Court has wrongly drawn conclusion against the appellants merely because they did not wish to be examined under Oath. It failed to appreciate the law in this regard. Placed reliance on PLD 1994 SC 679 and PLD 1991 SC 787. 8. On the other hand Mr.Ziaur Rehman, Special Prosecutor argued that the impugned judgment is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record. 9. It was further argued that the prosecution has discharged its initial burden of proof and then it was the duty of the appellants to show that the properties mentioned in the charge were acquired by them through lawful means, which they failed to prove, hence they were rightly convicted. 10. It was also argued that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the law quoted by the learned counsel for the parties in arriving at just conclusion. 11. It was further argued that neither the ladies nor Jan Muhammad have challenged the impugned judgment/order though their properties were directed to be confiscated. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 13. Before dilating upon the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties we feel it appropriate to discuss the evidence produced by the parties in this case. 14. Noor Ali Khan Patwari Halqa Mina Khel appeared as P.W.1 He placed on record table of immovable property of appellants in village Mina Khel as Exh.P.W.1/1. He also placed on record copy of Mutation No,951 as Exh.P.W.1/2, vide which the land was purchased in the name of appellant No,3. He also prepared the table of immovable property as Exh.P.W.1/3 belonging to the appellant No,1 and his alleged dependents. He placed on record certified copy of Mutation No,7278 as Exh.P.W.1/4 and copy of Mutation No,7283 as Exh.P.W.1/5. The report regarding market price of the land of the house belonging to appellant No,1 is
---
## Page 3
P.W.1/6. He also produced copy of the relevant entries in the Jamabandi as Exh.P.W.1/7. This witness also placed on record one year's average table as Exh.P.W.1/D-1 for the period from 30-1-1999 to 30-1-2000. 15. Sanaullah Khan, Patwari Halqa Shahab Khel appeared as P.W.2. He prepared table of immovable property of the appellant No,1 and his "dependents" and placed on record as Exh.P.W.2/1. Certified copy of Mutation No,10225 in Exh.P.W.2/2 and certified copy of Mutation No,10643 is Exh.P.W.2/3. He placed on record certified copies of the relevant Jamabandis as Exh.P.W. 2/4 (10 sheets). He also placed on record Ausat Yaksala commencing from 25-3-1986 as Exh.P.W.2/D-1. He also produced Ausat Yaksala commencing from 20-10-1989 as Exh.P.W.2/D-2. He placed on record Ausat Yaksala commencing from 24-1-2000 as Exh.P.W.2/D-3. He also placed on record copy of Mutation No,10409 as Exh P. W 2/D-4 . 16. Inayatullah Patwari, Halqa Dalu Khel appeared as P.W.3. He placed on record the table of immovable property showing ownership in the name of appellant No,1 and his dependents as Exh.P.W.3/1, certified copy of relevant Mutation No,962 is Exh.P.W.3/2, certified copy of Mutation No,976 is Exh.P.W.3/3, certified copy of Mutation No,1215 is Exh.P.W.3/4, certified copy of Ausat Yaksala commencing from 25-11-1997 as Exh.P.W.3/D-1, and Ausat Yaksala commencing from 19-12-1997 as Exh . P. W .3 /D-2. 17. Gulab Khan, Patwari Halqa Begu Khel appeared as P.W.4. He placed on record the statement showing immovable property of appellant No,1 and his dependents as Exh.P.W.4/1, certified copy of Mutation No,28059 as Exh.P.W.4/2, certified copy of Mutation No,28248 as Exh.P.W.4/3, certified copy of Mutation No,30412 as Exh.P.W.4/4, his report is Exh.P.W.4/5 and copies of Jamabandis as Exh.P.W.4/6. 18. Azizur Rehman, Manager Habib Bank Ltd. Lakki Marwat appeared as P.W.S. He placed on record a letter on demand in response to the Investigating Officer as Exh.P.W.5/1, copy of statement of Account in the name of appellant No,1 is Exh.P.W.5/2 and a certified copy Exh.P.W.5/D-1 regarding the transfer of amount of Rs,58,350 to the Account of appellant No,1 on the basis of prize bond drawn from State Bank of Pakistan. 19. Zulfiqar Ahmad, Officer of the Bank of Khyber, Dera Ismail Khan appeared as P.W.6. He placed on file the Account opening form regarding Current Account No,2929-7 dated 16-11-1999 in the name of Gul Tayaz appellant and the relevant statement of Account which are Exh.P.W.6/1 and Exh.P.W.6/2 and Account opening form regarding Current Account No,119 dated 29-11-2000 in the name of Muhammad Hayat appellant No,1 as Exh.P.W.6/3 and statement of Account is Exh.P.W.6/4. He also produced attested copy of Cheque dated 2-10-2000 in the name Gul Tayaz Khan amounting to Rs,14,65,204 as Exh.P.W.6/D-1, copy of Bank credit voucher dated 5-10-2000 as Exh.P.W.6/D-2, attested copy of Cheque No,652461 dated 1-10-2000, is Exh.P.W.6/D-3, copy of credit voucher dated 11-10-2000, Exh.P.W.6/D-4. This Cheque was also issued by the Food Department in favour of Gul Tayaz appellant, a copy of another Cheque was placed on file as Exh.P.W.6/D-5. Copy of credit voucher dated 22-11-2000 is Exh.P.W.6/D-6. Copy of Cheque produced by defence counsel is Exh.P.W.6/D-7.. Copy of statement of Account of Gul Tayaz is Exh.P.W.6/D- 8. Credit voucher dated 15-1-2001 is Exh.P.W.6/D-9, credit voucher of corresponding entry dated 16-1-2001 is Exh.P.W.6/D-8. Attested copy of Cheque produced by defence counsel is Exh.P.W.6/D-I0, Credit voucher dated 3-2-2001 is Exh.P.W.6/D-11 which correspond to the entry dated 6-2-2001 Exh.P.W.6/D-8, copy of credit voucher dated 27-2-2001 Exh.P.W.6/D-12. This credit voucher is also corresponding entry of Exh.P.W.6/D-8. Another Cheque dated 26-2-2001 was exhibited as Exh.P.W.6/D-13. This voucher was also corresponding entry of Exh.P.W.6/D-8, attested copy of voucher Exh.P.W.6/D-14, Cheque in favour of Gul Tayaz, Exh.P.W.6/D-15, voucher Exh.P.W.6/D-16 and copy of Cheque issued by Food Department in favour of Gul Tayaz is Exh.P. W .6/D-17. 20. Habibullah Khan Officer Grade-II of Bank of Khyber Peshawar was examined on Oath. He exhibited on record loan confirmation in the name of Gul Tayaz, as Exh.P.W.7/1, details of prize bonds given as security for the loan is Exh.P.W.7/2, statement of Account No,CD597 is Exh.P.W.7/3, copy of SDR/call deposit in favour of Director Food is Exh.P.W.7/D-1, copy of Cheque No,764829 dated 17-5-1999 is Exh.P.W.7/D-2. 21. Tahir Khan Accountant National Bank of Pakistan Bannu was examined as P.W.8, who placed on record copy of statement of Account No,4358-2 in the name of Gul Tayaz as Exh.P.W.8/1, copy of credit voucher as Exh.P.W.8/D-1 to 9, copies of Cheque corresponding to the transfer entries issued by Food Department in favour of Gul Tayaz are Exh.P.W..8/D-10 to -18. 22. Rafiullah Khan Clerk Excise and Taxation Balm was examined as P.W.9. He placed on record ET Letter dated 31-1-2001 as Exh.P.W.9/1, original record in respect of Motor Cycle No,LMB-15 as Exh.P.W.9/2,
---
## Page 4
documents in respect of Vehicle No,B-1020 Laki Marwat as Exh.P.W.9/3 and record regarding Vehicle No,B- 1019 Laki Marwat as Exh.P.W.9/4. 23. Muhammad Maqbool Khan, EAC Revenue Laki Marwat wasexamined as. P.W.10. He had granted permission for house search on application submitted by Nafeesul Islam D.S.P., which is Exh.P.W.10/1. He is marginal witness to the recovery memo. Exh.P.W.10/2, vide which a sum of Rs,15,77,240 was taken into possession. He is also marginal witness to Exh.P.W.10/3, through which the Investigating Officer took into possession 8 documents. 24. Muhammad Shu'aib Officer National Bank Laki Marwat appeared as P.W.11. He placed on record copy of statement of Account No,1630 as Exh.P.W.11/1. 25. Ikhsanullah Khan Member Inspection Team State Bank of Pakistan in Indus Bank Branch (under liquidation) was examined as P.W.12. He placed on record copy of covering letter Exh.P.W.12/1. Statement of Account is Exh.P.W.12/2. 26. Afzal Khan, Regional, Audit 'Officer Directorate of Food was examined as P. W.13. He brought original record attested copies of which were supplied to Investigating Officer during investigation of the Reference. Copies were placed on record as Exh.P.W.13/1 (35 sheets). He also exhibited copies of the Tender Notice as Exh.P.W.13/D-1. Comparative statement/bid sheet is Exh.P.W.13/D-2, approval letter is Exh.P.W.13/D-3. Agreement executed by Gul Tayaz in favour of Food Department is Exh.P.W.13/D-4. N.O.C. Is Exhs.P.W.13/D-5 to D-7, statement of payments made is Exh.P.W.13/D-8, copy of tender notice is Exh.P.W.13/D-9; bid sheet is Exh.P.W.13/D-10, approval letter is Exh.P.W.13/D-11, agreement is Exh.P.W.13/D-12, statement showing payments of Gul Tayaz is Exh.P.W.13/D-13. 27. Afsar Khan, Assistant Director Establishment Food Directorate, Peshawar appeared as P.W.14. He produced original record, copies whereof were exhibited as Exh.P.W.14/1 (16 sheets). 28. Aziz Ahmad, S.D.O. Building Sub-Division appeared as P.W.15. He placed on record copies of preface of composite schedule of rates of 1999 as Exh.P.W.15/1, general extract of cost of house is Exh.P.W.15/2, detailed cost is Exh.P.W.15/3. Copy of approval order dated 6-12-1999, approved plan deposit and three receipts are Exhs.P.W.15/D-1 to D-5. Copy of rules is Exh.P.W.15/D-6. 29. Akbar Khan, A.S.-I. RAB was examined as P.W.16. He is marginal witness of recovery memo. Exh.P.W.10/2 and Exh.P.W.10/3. 30. Nafeesul Islam, D.S.P. RAB was also examined as P.W.17. He'had arrested the accused and produced him before the Accountability Court alongwith his application Exh.P.W.17/1 for physical custody of 90 days. Custody granting order is Exh.P.W.17/2, application for further custody is Exh.P.W.17/3. Court order extending the period of custody is Exh.P.W.17/4. Application for extension of remand is Exh.P.W.17/5 and order of the Court extending the remand is Exh.P.W.17/6. Report of Tehsildar is Exh.P.W.17/7. Copies of the statements excepting Mutations Nos.8 and 9 were exhibited as Exh.P.W.17/8 and Exh.P.W.17/9. Statement of emoluments of accused is Exh.P.W.17/C-1. He had recovered during house search of accused Hayat Khan Utility Bills Exh.P.W.17/10 (5 sheets), copy of order of Commandar RAB is Exh.P.W.17/D-1. 31. Muhammad Wasim, Motor Taxation Clerk Office of ETO Rawalpindi brought original record in respect of Motor Car No,RIT 283, copies were placed on tile as EXII.P.W.18/1. 32. Amir Sher, Sadar Qanungo Laki Marwat produced original record regarding mutation which were already placed on file. 33. Inayatullah, Inspector F.I.A., Investigating Officer was examined as P.W.20. He placed on record letter of Director of F.I.A. As Exh.P.W.20/1, copy of RAB letter dated 15-2-2001 is Exh.P.W.20/2. He prepared final report Exh.P.W.20/3. List of documents is Exh.P.W.20/4, list of witnesses is Exh. P. W.20/5. 34. Mr.Ziaur Rehman, Advocate Special Prosecutor RAB closed the prosecution evidence on 19-5-2001 and his statement to this effect was recorded by the learned trial Court. 35. The statements of appellants were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. They furnished detailed replies to the questions put to them. They examined 44 witnesses in defence. 36. Inayatullah Khan, Incharge Settlement record appeared as D.W.1 and brought the original record of PTDs Exh.D.W.1/1 to Exh.D.W.1/10 through which various properties were purchased by the father of the appellants and their grandfather, Amir Jam Muharrir Police Station Lakki appeared as D.W. 2 and placed
---
## Page 5
on record copy of F.I.R 191 dated 30-10-1972 Exh.D.W.2/1 regarding the murder of Muhammad Ayaz Khan and Ahmad Ayaz. 37. Noorul Hadi, District Food Controller was examined as D.W.3. He placed on record charge report copy Exh.D.W.3/1. 38. Abdur Rehman, Sub-Registrar Peshawar placed on record copy of power of attorney Exh.D.W.4/1. 39. Wasil Khan, Superintendent Food Branch of Food Directorate, Peshawar was examined as D.W.5, who exhibited copy of letter dated 13-12-2000 Exh . D. W.5/1 . 40. Habib Nawaz, Head Clerk Office of District Food Controller, Bannu placed on record copy of application of Muhammad lqbal Exh.D.W.6/1, Challan Exh.D.W.6/2 and licence Exh.D.W.6/3. 41. Abdul Jamil, Officer State Bank of Pakistan placed on record copies of various prize bonds won by Muhammad Hayat. 42. Firdaus Khan, Store Keeper of M.C. Lakki was examined as D.W.8. He placed on record copies of application Exh.D.W.8/1, approved map Exh.D.W.8/2, approval order Exh.D.W.8/3, intimation Exh.D.W.8/4, receipt Exh.D.W.8/5 and Bank Challan Exh.D.W.8/6. 43. Javed Aziz Qazi was examined as D.W.9, who produced original allotment letter of plot situates at Hayat Abad as Exh.D.W.9/I, transfer order Exh.D.W.9/2, transfer letter of the said plot dated 3-11-1994 as Exh.D.W.9/3. 44. Haibat Khan (D.W.10) stated that he had partnership business with Gul Tayaz and produced copy of partnership deed as Exh.D.W.l0/3. 45. Hasham Khan (D.W.11) was. Deed writer, Haji Kalimullah (D.W.12) and Salim Khan (D.W.13) are the marginal witnesses of the partnership deed. 46. Quezar Khan was examined as D.W.14. He placed on record certificate Exh.D.W.14/1 regarding salary of Gul Tayaz obtained from Qadri Flour Mills Tank as Manager. 47. Arsala Khan D.W.15 was a property dealer, who negotiated sale of the plot situated at Hayat Abad in the name of Muhammad Hayat.. 48. Nobat Khan (D.W.16) has purchased shop from Hayat Khan, Gul Tayaz and Muhammad Iqbal Khan. Similarly Sahib Khan (D.W.29), Mir Badshah (D.W.31) and Ali Marjan (D.W.34) had purchased various properties from the appellants. 49. Muhammad Noor (D.W.19), Jalil Ahmad (D.W.20) Qasim Khan (D.W.21), Mir Aslam (D.W.22), Mujahid Naseer (D.W.23), Sadruddin (D.W.26), Nimatullah Khan (D.W.27) and Muhammad lqbal (D.W.28) had sold properties to appellants Nos.2 and 3 and the ladies. 50. Niaz Muhammad (D.W.24) had purchased gold ornaments. 51. Habibur Rehman, Special Officer Income Tax Department (D.W.25) had placed various documents regarding payment of. Income Tax and Wealth Tax. 52. Muhammad Azim Khan (D.W.13), Badshah Khan (D.W.31) had remained tenants under the appellants. Muhammad Ayub (D.W:32) stated that Muhammad Iqbal appellant was occupying market as a tenant since 1988. 53. Anwar Khan (D.W.33) remained servant of Muhammad lqbal appellant. 54. Ali Marjan (D.W.34) had purchased half portion of house from L.Rs, of Muhammad Ayaz Khan. 55. Gul Rahman (D.W.) had sold soap Factory to Gul Tayaz. 56. Abdul Qayyum (D.W.36), Muhammad Gul (D.W.37), Din Muhammad (D.W.38) deposed that Gul Tayaz Khan used to sell soap to them. 57. Muhammad Ishaq (D.W.39) stated that Muhammad lqbal appellant had a Poultry Farm. 58. Hamdillah Jan (D.W.40) remained servant in Poultry Farm under Muhammad lqbal. 59. Mian Takrimul Haq Kakakhel (D.W.41) remained tenant under the father of appellants. 60. Muhammad Jan uncle of the appellants was examined as D.W.42. He narrated the facts about the family of the appellants. 61. Now we advert to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 62. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that prosecution was to make out a reasonable case to the satisfaction of the Accountability Court, the prosecution would be deemed to have discharged the prima facie burden of proof and then the burden of proof would have been shifted
---
## Page 6
to the appellants to rebut the presumption of guilt, but the prosecution has utterly failed to discharge the initial burden of proof against the appellants. So far as this argument of the learned counsel is concerned, it has substantial force in it. Section 14 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 hereinafter referred to as NAB Ordinance deals with the presumption against the accused. Subsections (c) and (d) of section 14 of the said Ordinance are reproduced hereunder for convenience:-- "(c) In any trial of an offence punishable under this Ordinance, the fact that the accused person or any other person on his behalf, is in possession, for which the accused person cannot satisfactorily account, of property or pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known sources of income, or that such person has, at or about the time of the commission of the offence with which he is charged, obtained an accretion to his pecuniary resources or property for which he cannot satisfactorily account, the Court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the accused person is guilty of the offence of corruption and/or corrupt practice and his conviction therefore, shall not be invalid by reason only that it is based solely on such a presumption. (d) Where a person is accused of an offence under section 9(a) (vi) and (vii), the burden of proof that he used his authority, or issue any directive, or authorised the issuance of any policy or statutory rule or order (S.R.O.), or made any grant or allowed any concession, in the public interest fairly, justly, and for the advancement of the enactment under which the authority was used directive or policy of rule or order was issued or grant was made or concession was allowed shall lie on him, and in the absence of such proof the accused shall be guilty of the offence, and his conviction shall not be invalid by the reason that it is based solely on such presumption: Provided that the prosecution shall first make out a reasonable case against the accused charged under clause (vi) or clause (vii) of subsection (a) of section 91." 63. According to this section if a person is charged under clause (vi) or clause (vii) of subsection (a) of section 9 of the NAB Ordinance, it is the prosecution which shall first make out a reasonable case against the accused and the mere fact that a person stands charged for trial in the Accountability Court does not give rise to a presumption of guilt in respect of the abovementioned section of NAB Ordinance. In section 14(c) the legislation in its own wisdom has used words "unless the contrary is proved" which means the contrary can only be proved by accused if earlier something has been proved against him, that is the burden shall shift to the accused to prove to the contrary if some case has been made out against him by the prosecution when the law raises a presumption against the accused and calls upon him to prove the contrary, it is well-settled that the contrary cannot be said to be proved if the accused succeeds in establishing that the act attributed to him is capable of an interpretation other than that suggested by the prosecution, therefore, it was the duty of the prosecution to show that accused had misused his authority and thereby accumulated wealth, movable and immovable properties in his own name or in the name of any other person or he willfully failed to exercise his authority to prevent undue benefit of favour. Unless the facts constituting misuse of authority as contemplated under section 9(a)(vi) of the Ordinance are established the accused cannot be called upon to prove his innocence within the meaning of section 14(d) of the Ordinance. In such a case the prosecution would be duty bound to lead evidence against the accused and then he would be called upon to prove his innocence. In the recent judgment titled Khan Asfandyar Wali and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2001 SC 607. In paragraph 230 it was observed:-- "Be that as it may, the prosecution has to establish the preliminary facts whereafter the onus shifts and the defence is called upon to disapprove the…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.