Accused

2021 MLD 2003 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss.2(a), 2(f) & 8AccusedEmployeeOmbudsman to enquire into complaintScope

Accused must be an employee or an employer of the organization and complainant should be an employee of said organization.

2021 MLD 2003 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss.2(a), 2(f) & 8AccusedEmployeeOmbudsman to enquire into complaintScope

Every woman is not entitled to bring, lodge a complaint before the Ombudsman but only a woman, who is employee of an Organization and had been sexually harassed by another employee or the employer, according to S.2(h) of the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 is competent to lodge the complaint

No matter of choice of a woman but is of provision of forum concerned

Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010, is a special law and special procedure is provided for adjudication of the complaints

Provisions of Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 cannot be overlooked or ignored.

2010 PCrLJ 1902 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 561-A & 403Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.11 & 13Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.13Autrefois acquit, principle of

Foreign judgment-Accused-petitioner and accused-applicant were Manager and General Manager of two Airlines `C' and `P' respectively-Accused-petitioner was alleged to have paid kickbacks to the accused-applicant for lease agreement whereby Airline "C" leased five aircrafts to the Airline 'P'-Accused-petitioner's wife initiated proceedings against him in United Kingdom for her share in the money lying in his bank account there

Police of said country initiated investigations against the accused petitioner on suspicion that the money in his bank account was acquired by illegal means

National Accountability Bureau (Pakistan) joined the investigation of foreign Police and contested the case on behalf of the Federal Government of Pakistan in the foreign court alleging that the money in the bank account of the accused petitioner was received by him as kickbacks

National Accountability Bureau also filed reference in Accountability Court in Pakistan on the same allegations

Foreign Court exonerated both the accused

Accused contended that the National Accountability Bureau investigated and contested the case, was barred from filing the reference under Art.13 of the Constitution, S.403, Cr. P. C. and Ss.11 and 13 of C.P.C.

Validity

National Accountability Bureau placed material to prove its case before foreign court which had exonerated the accused

Federal Government of Pakistan did not challenge the judgment of foreign court which had attained finality and was binding on the parties

Reference could not be filed against the accused on the basis of same allegations which were subject-matter of the judgment as the accused could not be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once under Art.13 of the Constitution

Agreement between the two Airlines were approved by the Board of Directors of the Airline in Pakistan on the recommendation of the high-powered committee

Accused-applicant could not be presumed to influence the committee or the Board in his capacity as General Manager

Money in the accused petitioner's account had been paid to his wife in execution of the judgment/decree of foreign court; reference on the basis of the money subject-matter of said foreign judgment was barred by provisions of S.403, Cr. P. C.

National Accountability Bureau had deliberately shifted criminal liability to the accused whereas it should have implicated the members of the high-powered committee- and the Board of Directors of the Airline in Pakistan

National Accountability Bureau had neither any material nor expertise to prove its case

Reference being barred by Art.13 of the Constitution, S.403, Cr. P.C. and Ss. 11 and 13 of C.P.C., petition under S. 561-A, Cr. P. C. and criminal miscellaneous application were allowed.

1987 SCMR 1943 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 409Prevention of Corruption Act (I1 1947), S. 5(2)Criminal breach of trust by public servant

Accused-appellant, Inspector of Food Department, convicted and sentenced for misappropriating food-grain from Government Godown

No misreading or non-reading of record found and conviction of accused based on correct appraisal of evidence

Prosecution proving its case against accused beyond any reasonable doubt

Fact that accused's relatives had readily deposited the amount of Rs.11,000 in Government Treasury to repay the cost of misappropriated quantity of food-grain left no doubt about guilt of accused

Appeal being without any merit was dismissed.

1984 SCMR 1559 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 185(3)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/148/149Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 497 & 498MurderBailAccused respondents named as among assailants, of deceased

Report of Investigating Officer based upon statements of certain witnesses weighing with High Court in granting bail to accused-respondents

High Court observing that it created doubt as to respondents, being concerned in transaction which required further enquiry

Matter being discretion impugned order cannot be said to be arbitrary or capricious as to lay a foundation for interference

No prosecution witness examined although 11 months having gone by since submission of challan

Leave to appeal against grant of bail refused.

1984 SCMR 1512 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art.185(3)Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.156(1)(89)Accused petitioner, having Pleaded guilty of charge, convicted and sentenced by trial CourtAppeal against conviction dismissed by High Court

Held, accused petitioner having pleaded guilty could not allege that values goods found in his possession was not above Rs.1,000

Petition for leave to anneal found to be without merit and dismissed.

1984 SCMR 1486 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art.185(3)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302 & 304, Part I read with S.99MurderPrivate defence, right ofAccused-respondent before firing at deceased receiving injuries at hands of complainant party and pleading self-defenceTrial Court convicting accused-respondent under S. 304, Part I, Penal CodeReduction of sentence by High CourtHeld, justified in circumstances of caseLeave to appeal refused.

[Price defence, right of].

1984 SCMR 1476 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art.185(3)Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.497 & 498 read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.307BailCancellation ofAccused respondent failing to make arrangement in Supreme CourtBail granted to him by Sessions Judge and District Magistrate cancelled

Order, however, not to be bar to respondent for making fresh petition for bail before Sessions Court.

1984 SCMR 1228 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

O. XVII

Contempt of Supreme Court Accused-contemner tendering unconditional apology pleading that he did not enjoy good mental health and suffered from unbalanced perturbed mind at time of submitting application containing baseless and scandalous allegations

Apology accepted and accused contemner pardoned in view of circumstances narrated by him and proved on record.

[Contempt of Court].

1973 PLD 365 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 340 read with High Court Rules and Orders (Lahore), Vol. III, Chap. XXIV, Part C, r. 2-Accused-Right to be defended by pleader-Statutory right of accused, particularly in charge entailing capital punishment Cannot be abridged by appointment of counsel a day or two before trial-One week's time, at least, to be allowed in such cases.

1963 PLD 25 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Accused Accused

Large number named by complainant- Motive present to include as many persons as accused as possible-One accused at least admittedly falsely implicated-Suspicious circumstance.

1963 PLD 10 BAGHDAD-UL-JADID Judicial Precedent

Accused

Statement cannot be made basis of conviction unless whole of it is relied upon-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342.

1962 PLD 450 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Accused Accused

Large number named by complainant's party Factional hostility-Tendency to involve persons falsely.

1951 PLD 18 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Accused Accused-Statements of-Recorded jointly-Trial vitiated

Re-trial ordered-Criminal. Procedure Code, S. 364.