Availability of incriminating evidence

Plea raised by authorities was that there was sufficient evidence against accused which could have resulted in conviction of accused

Validity

In case of corruption and misappropriation of public money, court was required to act with extreme care and caution in deciding such case and should not proceed hastily in acquitting accused persons involved therein either under S.249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C., as the cases might be

Prosecution should provide every possible opportunity to prove its case and establish guilt of accused after a full-fledged trial

Besides evidence of two witnesses, record was also indicative of the fact that two accused who were holders of public office while taking benefit of S.25 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, voluntarily returned embezzled amount acquired by them

Most of bogus claims were submitted by employees of accused and whole embezzled amount of Rs.52 million along with interest was also deposited by co-accused, who happened to be nephew of principal accused

Such evidence required explanation from accused without which it could not have been ignored or discarded from consideration

Orders of acquittal passed by Trial Court were set aside and cases of accused were remanded to Trial Court to proceed from the stage at which the case stood when application of accused persons under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. were decided.