Recovery

Where the ocular account becomes, doubtful or unreliable, any alleged recovery made pursuant to such account could not, by itself, be sufficient to uphold the conviction and sentence of an accused.

Appeal was filed by the Department against order passed by Commissioner Inland Revenue-Appeals/CIR(A) whereby the tax liability (of Rs.1,973,470/-) under seven heads, from Purchases to other expenses, created under S. 161 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 by the Officer Inland Revenue/OIR against the Company, as a withholding agent, was deleted

Reason given by the CIR(A) to delete the tax liability was that section 161 (1B) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ('the Ordinance 2001') is very clear that if the person from whom purchases have been made is a registered NTN holder, no principle liability can be recovered from the said person for non deduction of tax and only surcharge can be recovered under S. 161 (1B) of the Ordinance, 2001

Validity

Provision of S. 161 (1B) of the Ordinance, 2001 has no nexus with the present preposition

Section 161 (1B) provides that where at the time of recovery of tax under subsection (1) of S. 161 of the Ordinance, 2001 it is established that the tax was to be deducted from the payment made to the person or collected from a person has meanwhile been paid by that person, no recovery shall be made from the person who failed to collect or deduct the tax but the said person shall be liable to pay default surcharge from the date he failed to collect or deduct the tax

Neither the taxpayer ever claimed that tax was paid by the person from whom it was liable to be deducted nor any proof of payment had been placed on record

Submission of taxpayer / respondent was misconceived that if the taxpayer did not collect or deduct tax then the Department should have collected from the person it was liable to be deducted

It is the duty of the taxpayer being withholding agent to deduct and deposit withholding tax and S. 161(1B) is only applicable if the withholding agent does not deduct/deposit tax but subsequently the person from whom tax was to be deducted paid and deposited the same in the government exchequer ; which , certainly, was not the case in hand

Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue set-aside the impugned order passed by the CIR(A) modifying the original order to the effect that charge of tax imposed by OIR on five heads was modified while charge on two heads was restored/upheld

Appeal, filed by the Department, was partly allowed accordingly.

Show cause notices were issued by authorities to importers for recovery of sales tax and advance income tax not paid at import stage on the plea of exemption

High Court set aside show cause notices on ground that the power to recover such taxes had extinguished after clearance of goods under section 80 of Customs Act, 1969

Validity

Phrase “Including recovery” which has been inserted by Finance Act, 2015 in section 6 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 is not meaningless

If on scrutiny, upon post clearance security of goods any error surfaces, it must immediately be referred to Officer of Inland Revenue, who may then exercise powers under relevant statute, which has its own machinery to assess and adjudicate

In case the short paid is assessed and adjudicated by officers of Inland Revenue, it can be entrusted to customs for “recovery” from consignments being imported, based on assessment and adjudication made by concerned Officer of Inland Revenue under relevant statutes

Once goods in question obtain clearance from relevant authorities and exit the port, import stage stands concluded and with it jurisdiction of the Customs authorities for subject taxes

Jurisdiction to conduct any assessment/adjudication of short levy of said taxes thereafter on imports vests back with officers of Inland Revenue, who have been duly empowered by Sales Tax Act, 1990 and/or Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and statutory notifications passed thereunder

Although any short levy/short payment of “customs duty” could be adjudicated by Customs department in line with provisions of Customs Act, 1969 yet the same could not be done for Sales Tax Act, 1990 /Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Provisions of Customs Act, 1969 in respect of calculation, payment and recovery of sales tax would only be applicable if no specific provisions were provided for the same in relevant statutes

Recent amendments were not made to overcome such understanding of law hence intention was obvious that no shifting of jurisdiction post clearance of goods since similar provisions were available in the relevant laws

Such amendments could not be interpreted to have taken over special jurisdiction under relevant provisions of law post clearance of goods and the parallel jurisdiction conferred upon Customs department was only to the extent of import stage which was contemplated in the special laws

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Recovery of Chaddar on pointing out of female accused was not stained with any incriminating material, like blood, froth, etc. of deceased

No Forensic Science Laboratory report was available on record regarding the Chaddar, which was available in every house

Recovery of Chaddar was not sufficient to connect accused persons with alleged offense

Prosecution also produced evidence of torn shirt of female accused from her possession, which was allegedly torn during the occurrence but no such statement was made by sole eyewitness that during the occurrence shirt of female accused was torn who had changed the shirt after the occurrence

Such recoveries were inconsequential for the prosecution

There was no independent corroboration of judicial confession of accused persons

Evidence of sole eyewitness was not worthy of reliance

Prosecution failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond shadow of doubt

If there was a single circumstance which had created doubt in prosecution case, the same was sufficient to acquit accused persons

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons as there were number of circumstances which had created serious doubts in prosecution's story

Resultantly accused persons were acquitted of the charge by extending them the benefit of doubt

Appeal was allowed.

Show cause notices were issued by authorities to importers for recovery of sales tax and advance income tax not paid at import stage on the plea of exemption

High Court set aside show cause notices on ground that the power to recover such taxes had extinguished after clearance of goods under section 80 of Customs Act, 1969

Validity

Phrase “Including recovery” which has been inserted by Finance Act, 2015 in section 6 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 is not meaningless

If on scrutiny, upon post clearance security of goods any error surfaces, it must immediately be referred to Officer of Inland Revenue, who may then exercise powers under relevant statute, which has its own machinery to assess and adjudicate

In case the short paid is assessed and adjudicated by officers of Inland Revenue, it can be entrusted to customs for “recovery” from consignments being imported, based on assessment and adjudication made by concerned Officer of Inland Revenue under relevant statutes

Once goods in question obtain clearance from relevant authorities and exit the port, import stage stands concluded and with it jurisdiction of the Customs authorities for subject taxes

Jurisdiction to conduct any assessment/adjudication of short levy of said taxes thereafter on imports vests back with officers of Inland Revenue, who have been duly empowered by Sales Tax Act, 1990 and/or Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and statutory notifications passed thereunder

Although any short levy/short payment of “customs duty” could be adjudicated by Customs department in line with provisions of Customs Act, 1969 yet the same could not be done for Sales Tax Act, 1990 /Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Provisions of Customs Act, 1969 in respect of calculation, payment and recovery of sales tax would only be applicable if no specific provisions were provided for the same in relevant statutes

Recent amendments were not made to overcome such understanding of law hence intention was obvious that no shifting of jurisdiction post clearance of goods since similar provisions were available in the relevant laws

Such amendments could not be interpreted to have taken over special jurisdiction under relevant provisions of law post clearance of goods and the parallel jurisdiction conferred upon Customs department was only to the extent of import stage which was contemplated in the special laws

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Appellant/groom was aggrieved of judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below without distinguishing dowry articles and presents

Validity

All property given to bride as dowry, bridal gifts, or presents vests absolutely in her

Use of the phrase "shall vest absolutely" confers exclusive and unqualified proprietary rights upon bride, thereby barring any adverse claim by husband or his relatives

Subsequent part "and her interest in property however derived shall hereafter not be restrictive, conditional or limited" acts as a safeguard to protect bride's proprietary autonomy from customary or familial encumbrances

Such absolute vesting of rights in the bride remains unaffected by any subsequent separation or divorce, thereby reinforcing her enduring and independent entitlement to such property

Legislative intent underpinning section 5 of Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act, 1976 is to secure independent proprietary status of bride and to shield her from dispossession, particularly in the event of marital breakdown

Purposive interpretation of provision of section 5 of Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act, 1976 necessarily confines the scope of recoverable property to that which is demonstrably intended for the bride

Accordingly, items gifted to the groom or his relatives, unless clearly shown to be intended for the bridge's use or held in trust for her benefit, fall outside the protective ambit of Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act, 1976

Consequently, presents given to groom's family cannot be claimed by bride under Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act, 1976 unless it is clearly established that those were intended solely for her use or benefit

List provided by respondent/ bride showed that certain items, given to the family of appellant/groom, fell outside the scope of dowry and bridal gifts and were passed as "presents", as defined under Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act, 1976

Such items could not be decreed in favour of respondent/bride

Supreme Court modified the judgment passed by High Court to exclude such items, while the suit decreed in favour of respondent/bride to the extent of remaining items was maintained

Appeal was allowed.

Petitioner / withholding company was aggrieved of imposition of recovery of Rs.12,098,984/- as principal amount of sales tax, along with penalty and default surcharge

Validity

Allegation of not withholding amount of sales tax on receiving services against petitioner / withholding company related to the period prior to promulgation of Finance Act, 2021

Text of amendment Act (Finance Act, 2021) did not give any impression of its retrospective application and that the liability to pay sales tax on services was on the service provider

Recipient was only responsible to withhold the amount of sales tax at the rate specified in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sales Tax on Services Special Procedure (Withholding) Regulations, 2015

Demand raised by authorities in terms of S. 30(3) of Finance Act, 2013 was illegal and without lawful authority

Before amendment of Finance Act, 2013 (through Finance Act, 2021) the authority was competent to issue a notification in official gazette to prescribe a special procedure for payment of taxes and further required any person or class of persons, whether registered or not for the purpose of Finance Act, 2013 to withhold full or part of tax charged for such a person or class of persons on the provision of any taxable services or class of taxable service and to deposit tax so withheld with government

Regulations were framed which envisaged that recipient of services should withhold sales tax on services and deposit the same in government head of account

During the period under consideration, liability upon withholding agent did not exist

Non-compliance of such Regulations was not visited with any penalty, albeit personal liability of withholding agent

Reference was disposed of accordingly.

Issuance of notices under Ss. 137 and 138 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 are also required as taxpayer may have filed an estimate for purposes of S. 147(6) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 which may then have been rejected by tax department in exercise of authority under second proviso of S. 147(6) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 or proviso to S. 147(6B) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 as applicable, in which case due date for payment of advance tax would have already passed

Tax department initially invites taxpayer to discharge liability to pay advance tax on a voluntary basis under S. 137 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 failing which it may notify the taxpayer of its intention to use its coercive powers under S. 138 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 to recover advance tax

This is the scheme for collection and recovery of advance tax, which has been incorporated by virtue of S. 147(7) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Any recovery affected without issuing such notices would be in breach of requirements of S. 147(7) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 read with Ss. 137 and 138 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and fall foul of taxpayer's right to due process guaranteed by Art. 10A of the Constitution and would be illegal.

Later on authorities issued show-cause notice for recovery of surcharge for home consumption which was not levied earlier at the time of payment of duty and taxes

Petitioner / company assailed initial order imposing taxes and duties in year 2013

Validity

Orders requiring petitioner / company to make payment of duties and taxes was not assailed, therefore, such order could not be assailed at present stage

Issuance of any declaration by High Court would amount to nullifying those orders, which could not be done when no specific challenge was made to them

Petitioner / company filed appeal before Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue

Proceedings against petitioner / company were initiated by issuance of show-cause notice for contravention of S. 83(2) of Customs Act, 1969

Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue derives its jurisdiction from S. 194-A of Customs Act, 1969, and is a forum which can adjudicate matters of facts and law, rather it is the forum which has jurisdiction to examine questions of facts raised before it

Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue is the forum to determine law where questions of law can be raised at any stage

Plea of no default could also be raised before Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue as duties and taxes were paid in installments due to decision of Economic Coordination Committee of Federal Cabinet

High Court declined to issue any declaration regarding principal liability, as well as surcharge and direction for refund

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution, does not lie for payment of compensation or damages under a contract, against the Government.

Prosecution must prove the recovery independently.

Recovery was a corroborative piece of evidence and where direct evidence failed, corroborative piece of evidence was of no avail.

Rational in S. 161 (1B) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was that a tax liable to be adjusted against tax due, could not be recovered when tax due had already been paid

Recovery of any amount, thereafter, not adjustable against tax due for relevant period was to be refunded and whole exercise for recovery would be futile, as tax collected would not become part of National Exchequer rather would burden it with an expense which could have been expended for recovery of tax due

Pursuit of creating such demands by tax administrators, to meet budgetary targets, not only wasted resource and revenue but burdened judicial hierarchy up till Supreme Court

There must, at least initially, be some reason or information available with Commissioner for him to conclude that there was, or could have been, a failure to deduct tax

All tax authorities for the purpose of S.161 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 were to identify payments, whether singly or in lump sum (i.e.) as part of a broader class or category of such payments

Triggering event for issuance of Notice was a failure to either collect tax or deduct it

Commissioner was to point out a payment to cast burden wholly or solely on the taxpayer

After issuance of Notice, the first thing needed to be verified was, whether tax, required to be deducted or collected, of a person had been paid or not

If tax liability for relevant tax year was found paid/discharged, the Commissioner could proceed only to impose default surcharge and penalty

Reconciliation, under R. 44(4) of Income Tax Rules, 2002, could not be called without first ensuring filing of statements under the rule

High Court set aside order in question as the same was passed by authorities ignoring judgments passed by Superior Courts

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

On furnishing of complete return Commissioner was taken to have made assessment order of "taxable income" and "tax due thereon"

Order under S.120 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was taken to be assessment order for all purposes of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Provision of subsection (2A) was inserted in S.120 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and after the date it was notified, return of income was processed through automated system

Certain adjustments of incorrect claim were allowed to be made by Commissioner, before the return had attained status of assessment order by operation of law

On identifying incorrect claim, a system generated notice was issued, before making adjustment

If no adjustment was made within six months of filing the return, amounts specified in the return were deemed to be rightly adjusted amounts, therefore, would be part of assessment order under S.120 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

No system generated notice under S.120(2A) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was issued, therefore, WWF adjusted or allowed to be adjusted was part of order under S.120 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, under third proviso to S.120(2A) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Motive and recovery are only corroborative pieces of evidence and if the ocular account is found to be unreliable then the evidence of motive and recovery have no value and lost their significance.

In absence of reliable oral evidence conviction could not be based on any piece of corroborative evidence.

Perusal of record transpired that spy information was received by complainant near a Hotel, but no plausible explanation was offered by the prosecution why police did not associate any independent person from the place of information to witness the arrest and recovery proceedings

Investigating Officer had also failed to interrogate the accused that as to with what intention he was carrying such explosive substance

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt of accused

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

If ocular account was convincing and worthy of credit and same also found support from medical evidence same was sufficient to record/maintain conviction.

Conviction might not solely be based upon corroboratory evidence.

Recovery is only corroborative piece of evidence and it enhances the gravity of substantive evidence but when case is not proved through substantive evidence then corroborative piece of evidence loses its efficacy.

Recovery being purely corroboratory in nature could not only be considered to sustain conviction on a capital charge.

Recovery was only a corroborative piece of evidence and if the ocular account was found to be unreliable then the recovery had no evidentiary value.

Such kind of evidence by itself is not sufficient to bring home the charges against the accused more particularly when the other material put-forward by the prosecution in respect of guilt of the accused had been disbelieved.

Accused persons were employees of fumigation company and they were alleged to be negligent while fumigating residential flat of complainant which allegedly resulted into death of his minor son

Trial Court convicted the accused persons and sentenced them to imprisonment for three years

Validity

Inordinate delay of one month and two days in lodgment of FIR which was not explained properly by prosecution at any stage

Presumption was that the FIR was result of due deliberation and consultation

Place of incident was located at residential apartment which was thickly populated area where other inhabitants were residing

Investigating officer did not offer anybody from general public to act an independent source as a witness of place of incident, arrest of accused to identify as fumigators

No photographs of drilling termite proofing of walls as well as space for termite proofing which was agreed in between owners of the fumigation company and the head of the apartment

Neither there was DNA report of deceased, nor medical report designed the poison which allegedly was inside body of deceased was of fumigation company or following dinner at Bar B.Q.

Nothing was available on record with regard to any independent, cogent, reliable and tangible evidence brought on record against accused persons

No report was obtained from Forensic Science Laboratory with regard to substance for testing poison

Such were the dents in prosecution case which led the case of prosecution doubtful

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons as prosecution failed to bring accused persons into home of guilt resultantly accused persons were acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Wisdom behind sealing of weapons at the place of incident was to eliminate the possibility of manipulation of evidence after the recovery of the crime weapon.

Recovery of weapon of offence was only a corroborative piece of evidence; and in absence of substantive evidence, it was not considered sufficient to hold the accused person guilty of the offence charged

When substantive evidence failed to connect the accused person with the commission of offence or was disbelieved, corroborative evidence was of no help to the prosecution as the corroborative evidence could not by itself prove the prosecution case.

Recovery of crime weapon and casing is not mandatory requirement of law same being corroborative piece of evidence.

Absence of such corroborative evidence would have no direct impact upon the ocular account.

Recovery of dead body on the pointing out of several accused and preparation of a joint recovery memo in this regard has no evidentiary value.

Motive and recovery are only corroborative pieces of evidence and if the ocular account is found to be unreliable then motive and recovery had no evidentiary value and lost their significance.

Motive and recovery are only corroborative pieces of evidence and if the ocular account is found to be unreliable then the evidence of motive and recovery had no value and lost its significance.

Motive and recovery are only corroborative pieces of evidence and if the ocular account is found to be unreliable then motive and recovery has no evidentiary value and lose their significance. [Para. 24 of the judgment]

Place wherefrom alleged ransom amount was recovered was not in the exclusive possession of accused, therefore, recovery of ransom amount was of no avail to prosecution

Prosecution's story was full of doubts, benefit of which was to be resolved in favour of accused

Single instance causing reasonable doubt in the mind of Court entitled accused to the benefit of doubt not as a matter of grace but as a matter of right

Prosecution failed to prove its case against accused beyond any shadow of doubt

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court and he was acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that the accused was required in another case for offence under S.302, P.P.C., and was apprehended and a gun without licence with three live cartridges was recovered from his possession

Record showed that in the main case the complainant did not name present accused and stated that one unidentified person with muffled face armed with gun directly fired at the daughter of complainant

Complainant as well as alleged eye witnesses of the incident did not identify the present accused to be the same who fired at the deceased

In the present case there also seemed to be violation of the provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C. as no independent witness of the locality was associated as mashir of the alleged arrest of the accused and recovery of the gun from him

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution had failed to establish the safe custody of the recovered explosive at the police station as neither the Incharge of the Malkhana was examined nor any entry had been produced by the prosecution to prove the safe custody of the explosive at the police station

Even perusal of arrival entry, not a single word was found about keeping the said property in safe custody or anywhere either it was kept at Malkhana of the police station or was handed over to anybody

Non-production of any witness concerned with such custody would certainly render the recovery unbelievable and doubtful

Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that .7mm pistol along with magazine and five cartridges were recovered from the personal search of accused

Complainant stated that the alleged recovery of .9mm pistol with magazine from possession of accused was made from a road

Complainant in his cross-examination admitted that said road remained busy and from place of information to the place of arrest of accused, there was huge population

Admittedly, complainant had received prior spy information about presence of accused who was required in various cases

When spy information was conveyed to the complainant and place of arrest of the accused and recovery of firearm weapon from his possession was a busy and populated area then why complainant did not arrange any private witness from the locality to act as mashir

Complainant had also not deposed that at least he made any efforts to procure private/independent persons for acting as witnesses / mashirs in the case

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that a hand-grenade and a pistol .30-bore with loaded magazine having six live rounds were recovered from the possession of accused, who failed to produce any valid licence of the recovered items

Record showed the arrival entry No. 10 dated 7.4.2019 at 1800 hours, which was made at police station, did not show the names of police official/subordinate staff including mashirs of the case

Said aspect of the case created serious doubt in the prosecution story

Accused, despite having weapon and hand-grenade, was arrested easily without causing any resistance

Alleged incident took place on 7.4.2019 at about 4:30 p.m. and place of occurrence was thickly populated area, which was surrounded by shops, houses and people were available there, despite availability of people, complainant failed to obtain the services of any independent person to witness the event

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt, admittedly alleged hand grenade was without detonator, which meant that the same was useless and harmless, therefore, S. 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, had wrongly been applied in the case just to create jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court

Nothing on record that the accused remained indulged in such type of activities in the past

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

In absence of direct evidence, recovery alone being corroborative evidence was not sufficient to prove the charge against the accused.

At least one independent forum outside the regime of department was to determine tax dispute between department and tax payer; Until the same has not been finally determined by independent forum, then ordinarily, no recovery is to be made from taxpayer.

Recovery was only a corroborative piece of evidence.

If ocular account had been disbelieved, the evidence of motive and recovery would have no consequence.

If the ocular account was found to be unreliable then motive and recovery had no evidentiary value and lost their significance.

Investigating officer can obtain a search warrant for that purpose.

In case direct evidence was disbelieved, it would not be safe to maintain conviction on confirmatory evidence.

When police does not associate any resident of the locality in investigation for purpose of recovery, such recovery proceedings conducted in violation of S.103, Cr.P.C., were hit by exclusionary rule of evidence and could not be considered.

Recovery of article cannot be termed as discovery, when it was not recovered from any hidden place and if, in normal course, the police-officer was able to see it and take its possession without any statement of the accused for pointing it out.

Prosecution case was that deceased was taken away from his shop by the accused on some pretext and that the accused threw the deceased in a blind well while he was sitting on its wall, thereafter, the accused went inside the well and inflicted different injuries to the deceased with a brick

Evidence of the prosecution connecting the accused with the commission of offence was in the form of last seen, recovery and confession

Accused had confessed his guilt when he was being interrogated by the police after his arrest, therefore, such evidence could not be used against him

Incident of accused pointing out the place of occurrence in police custody and a memo. in support thereof also could not be admitted in evidence

Circumstantial evidence must have had constituted a nexus through a chain of circumstances linking the crime with the accused, thus, recovery and last seen could not sustain the charge as they lacked proximity in time and space

Medical officer observed nine injuries on the body of the deceased, five injuries were caused by a sharp edged weapon and the cause of death was also an incised wound

Nothing was available on record to show that the brick was used for causing the death of deceased

Deceased was not forced, in particular, when he on the call of accused had accompanied him from his shop, therefore, no case of abduction within the ambit of S. 364, P.P.C. was made out against the accused

Prosecution evidence suffered from certain infirmities/illegalities on the basis whereof conviction/punishment recorded against the accused was not sustainable

Appeal was allowed while setting aside the conviction and sentences of accused, in circumstances.

Incident was night time occurrence due to which private public was not available on road and place of arrest was an abandoned area

Recovery was affected at about 0240 hours and it was not possible for police to arrange for private witnesses at odd hours of the night

Such non-association of private witnesses was not fatal to the case of prosecution

Police officials were as good as private witnesses and their testimony could not be discarded merely for reason that they were police officials unless accused persons had succeeded in giving dent to statements of prosecution witnesses and proved their mala fide or ill-will against accused

Bomb Disposal Unit reports so also Forensic Science Laboratory reports were against accused persons and were in line with case of prosecution

All witnesses furnished ocular evidence and supported case of prosecution and no enmity was suggested against accused persons

Prosecution witnesses were cross-examined at length but there were no major contradictions in their evidence to lead that witnesses were not trustworthy

High Court declined to interfere in conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Recovery which is made on the pointation of more than one accused is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon.

Recovery or absence thereof would be immaterial if ocular account otherwise is confidence inspiring and finds support from medical evidence.