Corruption

Prosecution case was that the accused persons were transporting wheat from Sindh province to Punjab province after receiving illegal gratification despite the fact that the government had issued a ban on the transport of wheat from Sindh to Punjab

All the accused persons were attributed a role and a set amount received by them as bribe was also available on record

Sufficient evidence was available on record to connect them with the alleged offence

Prosecution witnesses in their S. 161, Cr.P.C. statements had fully implicated the accused persons with the commission of alleged offence

Contention of accused was that no permission was obtained to register the case and that the Magistrate had not accompanied the raiding party, High Court observed that in view of R. 11(2) of Sindh Enquiries and Anti-corruption Establishment Rules, 1993, a permission to register case against a public servant was not required if he was caught red-handed in the commission of the offence

Magistrate was although unavailable during the proceedings, however, he was replaced by Deputy Director Anti-Corruption Establishment being a gazetted officer of the establishment

Bail applications were dismissed, in circumstances.

Respondent was unable to demonstrate from the record that he had made any grievance as to his confessional statement being made under duress and pressure

Award of major penalty of removal from service against the respondent was restored.

Service Tribunal set aside the order of removal of respondent-civil servant and ordered de-novo inquiry in consideration of the fact that the witness who deposed against the respondent during inquiry was not examined in presence of the respondent

Legality

Merely raising a technical question that the witness who deposed against the respondent was not examined may alone not be sufficient to dispel the effect of a confession made by him before the inquiry officer

Service Tribunal had misdirected itself by taking a too lenient view in the matter of corruption (committed by the respondent) in a disciplined force

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed and impugned judgment of Service Tribunal was set aside.

Respondent was unable to demonstrate from the record that he had made any grievance as to his confessional statement being made under duress and pressure

Award of major penalty of removal from service against the respondent was restored.

Service Tribunal set aside the order of removal of respondent-civil servant and ordered de-novo inquiry in consideration of the fact that the witness who deposed against the respondent during inquiry was not examined in presence of the respondent

Legality

Merely raising a technical question that the witness who deposed against the respondent was not examined may alone not be sufficient to dispel the effect of a confession made by him before the inquiry officer

Service Tribunal had misdirected itself by taking a too lenient view in the matter of corruption (committed by the respondent) in a disciplined force

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed and impugned judgment of Service Tribunal was set aside.

Power of quo warranto in relation to a Parliamentarian could be validly exercised by the courts if the disqualification attributed to them had direct and close nexus to corruption, because an act of dishonesty was covered by Art. 62(1)(f) of the Constitution.

Charge against accused was that he took illegal gratification from the complainant for installation of an electricity transformer

Accused allegedly failed to install the transformer and resultantly issued a cheque to the complainant, which cheque bounced on presentation for want of money

Questions as to under what circumstances and in whose presence, amount in question was paid, and whether the explanation offered by accused in such regard was trustworthy or otherwise, were questions which required further probe through recording of evidence

Whether accused issued the cheque with dishonest intention in order to hood-wink the complainant side or the same got bounced in view of some other circumstances, like insufficiency of amount were facts which were yet to be proved

Accused had shown his willingness to refund the alleged amount which according to him was borrowed from the complainant as loan owing to his sister's marriage

Offence under S.5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Accused had made out an arguable case for the purpose of his release on bail within the ambit of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Reasonable ground existed to believe that case of accused was of further inquiry therefore he was admitted to bail.

"Corruption" in a civilized society was a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time was sure to malign the polity of a country leading to disastrous consequences

Corruption has been termed as plague which was not only contagious but if not controlled, spreads like a fire in a jungle and it could be compared with the HIV virus which leads to the incurable disease of AIDS

Corruption has also been termed as royal thievery

Socio-political system exposed to such a dreaded communicable disease was likely to crumble under its own weight

Corruption opposed democracy and social order, was anti-people, and affected the economy and destroyed the cultural heritage

Unless corruption was nipped in the bud at the earliest, it was likely to cause turbulence, shaking of the socio-economic-political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrant society.

Effect of corruption on society and way of life of the people.

Need for enacting effective anti-corruption laws stressed by High Court.

R. S.-Corruption-Allegation of-Must be based on some solid facts-Subjective opinion of competent authority about adverse reputation should be supported by some tangible evidence-Accused should be confronted with such evidence-Removal from service-Based upon corruption allegations in character. roll without tangible evidence and confrontation therewith of accused-Appeal, in circumstances, accepted and removal order set aside-Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

Corruption Defence-Special Judge proceeding to examine accused over again, after arguments and before pronouncing order-Examination more detailed than former examination-Fresh opportunity for defence not accorded-Trial, held, not affected by omission to provide such opportunity-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342.