4. Presumption against accused-In respect of the offence of corruption and corrupt practices defined in S. 9(a)(v) and the presumption in law as contained in S. 14(C) of the National Accountability ordinance, 1999 prosecution is initially required to establish the possession of properties or pecuniary resources disproportionate to know sources of income of accused-Once this fact is established by production of evidence or with the admission of accused persons, the onus shifts to the accused to prove the contrary and give satisfactory account of holding/possessing the properties or pecuniary resources, failing which holding/possessing the properties or pecuniary resources, failing which the court shall be legitimately justified in presuming the accused persons to be guilty of offence of corruption and/or corrupt practices and awarding the conviction provided by law-Mere disclosure of a source for acquiring and asset would not be deemed sufficient to discharge the onus laid on an accused under the Ordinance-Source disclosed by the accused should be reasonable, logical, satisfactory and know, meaning thereby that not merely the immediate source should be disclosed but the ultimate source from where the funds emanated shall also be disclosed. 2004 M L D 77Appellant (civil servant) had not denied existence of agricultural land in the name of his mother, two plots in the name of his wife and had not denied partnership of Flour Mills in the name of his wife, having been acquired during his service tenure-Appellant could not prove his assertion that assets in question were purchased by his mother and wife through their own sources of income-Sufficient evidence was produced to concluded that appellant was guilty of offence under S. 9 of Ordinance of 1999, punishable under S. 10 of Ordinance-Trial Court was right in its conclusion to record conviction and sentence-Conviction and sentence recorded against appellant was maintained. 2003 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1 Appreciation of evidence-Prosecution had failed to prove reasonable case muchless to the satisfaction of the Court-Charges levelled against the accused could not be brought home by the prosecution-No direct or indirect evidence to show that the accused was a corrupt official and he was holding such responsible position by misuse of which, he had amassed huge wealth-Not a single witness had deposed that the accused was a dishonest/corrupt person and was living beyond his means-No evidence was available on record to show such acts or omissions or the powers he exerted, the influence he brought to bear upon someone as to constitute misuse of that authority-Nothing was available on record to prove that accused/co-accused and their mother were holding the properties (mentioned in the charge), vehicles and Bank accounts as Benamidars and that they were ‘dependent’ on the accused-Investigating Officer, in the cross-examination had admitted to the extent that there was not direct evidence because it was a white collar crime and he had just collected evidence for drawing conclusion-Trial Court had discarded the entire evidence produced by the accused on wrong premises-Documents which were not admissible were relied upon and those documents which favoured the accused were conveniently ignored-Trial Court had based conviction on presumptions only without cogent, convincing and adequate evidence on record, which was lacking in the case and failed to appreciate properly the law applicable to the case and interpretation of Supreme Court Judgment was squeezed and judgments of superior Courts, were not kept in view-Accused on the other hand had given satisfactory explanation about sources of their income and adduced sufficient documentary and oral evidence in their support-Appeal against conviction by the Trial Court was accepted by High Court in circumstances and accused was acquitted. PLD 2002 Peshawar 118Adverse presumption under the NAB Ordinance cannot be drawn against the accused merely by filing a Reference in the Court, as burden shifts upon him to disprove the allegations-Primarily prosecution is duty bound to prove the case against the accused that he had acquired property or had taken pecuniary advantage by corrupt, dishonest or illegal means and when it has made out a reasonable case through evidence satisfying the conscience of the Court regarding the guilt of accused, then the presumption shall be raised against him and onus would shift upon him. Khan Asfandyar Wali and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Cabinet Division, Islamabad and others PLD 2001 SC 607 rel.
Translate »Copy Protected by Chetan's WP-Copyprotect.