RECOVERY MEMO 2000 PCrLJ 1896. Afsar Ali V/S The State & another (Lahore). S.5(2) Prev. of Corruption Act. Illegal gratification tampering with recovery memos. Complainant volunteered to become a trap agent. Accused was charged of accepting illegal gratification of Rs:500 for supply of flour quota. Visible tampering with the recovery memos prepared before as well as after the trap was found. Effect. Was yet to be determined at trial as to who made the recoveries and who were the witnesses thereof. Where there was a serious controversy to be resolved at trial, the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt at the stage of bail. Offence against accused did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497 CrPC and the accused being a Government servant was not likely to abscond. BAIL ALLOWED 1998 PCrLJ 1625. Khalil-ur-Rehman V/S The State (Peshawar). Art.3/4 Pro.(EHO). S. Cont. of Narcotics Substances Act. S.156 CrPC. Benefit of irregularity committed by the police in giving wrong date in the recovery memo, due to his carelessness could not be given to the accused from whose personal possession “Charas” had been recovered. BAIL REFUSED KLR 1995 1995 Cr.C. 167. Tika @ Essa V/S The State (Karachi DB). S.302/396/149/307/34 PPC. It was the duty of prosecution to have produced the masheernama and also to have examined the mashir of recovery of gun who had also to submit to cross examination. Mere oral statement of I.O. without corroboration from the mashir in absence of mashirnama could not be accepted as corroborative proof of recovery of gun. APPEAL ACCEPTED 1995 SCMR 246. Mst.Tahira Dilawar & 6 Others V/S Ghulam Samdani (FB). Neither the original mashirnama, subject matter of the charge, allegedly prepared by accused nor copy thereof produced in the court nor circumstances justifying secondary evidence of the same as required under Art.76 were available. High court had applied its conscious mind to the relevant evidence and given cogent reasons for not relying on prosecution evidence and its judgment of acquittal did not suffer from any infirmity. LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED 1998 PCrLJ 292. Muhammad Naeem V/S The State (Lahore). S.302/404/201 PPC. Recovery memos having been interpolated were doubtful. No plausible explanation had been tendered by the prosecution for not sending the empty to the Laboratory before the recovery of the rifle. Dead body at the time of its recovery was decomposed and not identifiable. Nobody having seen the deceased near the place of occurrence, evidence of last seen was not convincing. ACQUITTAL 2001 PCrLJ 1859. Ghulam Nabi & another V/S The State (Karachi) S.302/34 PPC. Mashirnama of arrest of accused was produced through, Investigating Officer and none of the mashirs of arrest and recovery of hatchets were examined. Enmity existed between accused and the complainant party. Prosecution case being highly doubtful. ACQUITTAL 2001 PCrLJ 1877. Muhammad Amjad & 2 Others V/S The State (Lahore) S.302(b) & 302(c)/34 PPC. Recovery witnesses hd not supported the recoveries allegedly effected in the case and stated that they had signed the recovery memos in the Police station. Joint confession of guilt by all accused before the witnesses at the same time and place, extral-judicial confession made by them which were retracted and in conflict with medical evidence, was of no value and could not be relied upon. ACQUITTAL PLD 2001 Karachi (DB) 369.Ali Hassan V/S The State S.9(b) Cont. of Nar. Sub.act, 1997. Excise Inspector, at the relevant time was on patrol in company of eight other excise officials, but in the charge-sheet submitted before the trial court, the Investigating Officer had mentioned only two witnesses in addition to himself and only one witness in addition to Investigating Officer were examined before the trial court. Presumption could be that prosecution witnesses who were not examined, would not have supported the prosecution case. Material contradictions existed in the evidence of prosecution witnesses with regard to preparation of mashirnama which had rendered the whole prosecution case doubtful and the accused could not be deprived of the benefit of such doubt. ACQUITTAL NLR 2007 CrLJ 446.Haq Nawaz V/S The State (SC) S.302 PPC. Subsequent preparation of site plan and recovery memos, pertaining to crime empties on account of destruction of police file and judicial portion of the file would have no adverse effect on prosecution case which is based on evidence of eye-witnesses, medical evidence and evidence of motive. CONVICTION UPHELD.
Posted on: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 10:50:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015