Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL SHAKOOR VS Respondent: THE STATE
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Muhammad Munir Khan Title: ABDUL SHAKOOR vs THE STATE Case No.: Criminal Appeal No, 291 of 1984 Date of Judgment:1985-01-26 Reported As: 1985 MLD 830 Result: Appeal accepted
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ' This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha whereby he on 2-6-1984 convicted Abdul Shakoor appellant under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs,3,000, in default thereof further S.I. For six months. 2. The appellant was a foot constable/driver at police lines, Faisalabad. The charge against him was that he criminally misappropriated diesel and mobile oil valuing Rs,1,793. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 3. To prove its case prosecution examined 17 witnesses. They supported the prosecution case. 4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all incriminating circumstances. In defence he produced no witness. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is no direct evidence of the removal of diesel/mobile oil by the appellant from the vehicle. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that there is no direct evidence of the removal of diesel/mobile oil by the appellant from the vehicle. No one saw him removing diesel/mobile oil from the vehicle or taking away the same. The circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution and A relied upon by the trial Court fail to exclude the hypothesis of the innocence of the appellant. To my mind, the circumstantial evidence is not strong enough to bring home the guilt to the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 7. For what has been stated above, giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge.