2019 PLP 1079 (SCMR)
ABDULLAH JAN — Appellant Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2019 PLP 1079 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Manzoor Ahmad Malik,Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | ABDULLAH JAN — Appellant Versus The STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 1079 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2019 PLP 1079 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Manzoor Ahmad Malik,Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 PLP 1079 (SCMR) (ABDULLAH JAN — Appellant Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Zafar Abbas Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court and Haji Muhammad Zahir Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 14.12.2011 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Ehtesab Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2003).
S. 367
Language and contents of judgment
High Court affirming findings rendered by the Trial Court but not discussing evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as the accused
Supreme Court observed that in such circumstances it felt handicapped to objectively verify the points of determination as well as contentions raised by the accused and therefore considered it best to remit the present matter to the High Court so as to benefit the Supreme Court with a detailed discussion within the contemplation of S. 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the case was remanded with the direction that it shall be deemed to be pending before the High Court for decision afresh. Syed Azeem Dad, Additional Deputy Prosecutor-General, National Accountability Bureau for NAB.
Judgment & Decree
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.
Abdullah Jan, appellant herein, is in receipt of a guilty verdict returned by learned Judge, Accountability Court No.1, Peshawar vide impugned judgment dated 13.9.2013. As a Store Keeper in Communication and Works Department, he was found to have accumulated assets, hugely disproportionate to his legitimate source of income. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant questioned vires of his conviction before the Peshawar High Court; the attempt met with no better fate as the learned High Court concurred with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 14.12.2011.
2. We have noticed that the learned High Court while affirming findings rendered by the learned Accountability Court has not discussed evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as the appellant and thus we feel handicapped to objectively verify the points of determination as well as contentions raised by the appellant and therefore consider it in the fitness of things to remit this matter to the learned High Court so as to benefit us with detailed discussion within the contemplation of section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. This appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside, the case is remanded and shall be deemed to be pending for decision afresh. It is expected that the learned High Court would find it convenient, in the fullness of time, sooner rather than later, to decide the issue, after affording opportunity of hearing to the appellant. MWA/A-14/SC Case remanded.