Summary: (a) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (10 of 1984)---- ----Electronic evidence---Audio/video recording---Admissibility---Authentication and proof of genuineness---Supreme Court held that electronic evidence may be admissible under Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002, and may be treated as primary evidence, but its admissibility is subject to strict conditions---Source, origin and manner of obtaining recording must be proved, and expert confirmation must establish that recording was not tampered with, altered or doctored---No audio tape or video can be relied upon by Court unless proved genuine and free from tampering---In present case, prosecution primarily relied upon clandestine audio recording allegedly containing conversation between accused persons regarding payment of bribe, but no additional independent witness or incriminating evidence was available. Cited Cases: • Ishtiaq Ahmed Mirza v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2019 SC 675 • Ahmed Omar Sheikh v. State 2021 SCMR 873 (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (10 of 1984) / Electronic Transactions Ordinance (LI of 2002)---- ----Secret audio/video recording---Recording made to trap, humiliate, scandalize, extort or procure evidence---Lawfulness and admissibility---Supreme Court held that recording of a conversation in which recorder is participant may generally not constitute illegal wiretapping, even if other person is unaware; however, recording conversation between two other persons is illegal---Audio recordings as evidence must be relevant, duly obtained and must not infringe rights of parties---Secret recordings intended to humiliate, disgrace, scandalize, outrage, insult, trap or extort an accused or any individual are not to be treated as lawful basis for conviction---Illegality of complainant cannot be used as solitary foundation for convicting accused. (c) Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (XL of 2016)---- ----S. 23---Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 389---Unauthorized surveillance---Capturing image or voice with dishonest intent---Secretly collecting information about private conversation without consent for extortion or illegal purpose amounts to criminal conduct---PECA recognizes unauthorized surveillance, and S.23 criminalizes unauthorized taking, capturing or transmission of a person’s image or voice with dishonest intent---There is a distinction between routine recordings made in ordinary course of duty and recordings made for purpose of laying a trap to procure evidence---Latter category is punishable and cannot be given judicial legitimacy. Cited Cases: • Hakim Ali Bhatti v. Abdul Hakim 1986 CLC 1784 • Ishtiaq Ahmed Mirza v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2019 SC 675 (d) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 14---Dignity of man and privacy of home---Secret recording of private conversation---Constitutional violation---Supreme Court held that inviolability of dignity of man and privacy of home are guaranteed under Art.14 of Constitution---Recording citizen’s conversation secretly and using it as a weapon in judicial proceedings directly violates constitutional guarantee of privacy and dignity---Such practice reduces society to a surveillance theatre where end is treated as justifying means---Where complainant resorts to unlawful surveillance, he may transform from victim into offender, while person against whom such audio/video is leaked may be victim rather than accused. Cited Case: • Hamna Qaiser v. Chairman PEMRA 2024 MLD 243 (e) Islamic jurisprudence---- ----Right of privacy---Prohibition against spying---Surah Al-Hujurat 49:12---Supreme Court observed that right of privacy is firmly embedded in Islamic jurisprudence and constitutional thought---Holy Qur’an commands “Do not spy”---Inviolability of home and prohibition against unwarranted surveillance are foundational principles---Incident from era of Hazrat Umar ibn al-Khattab (RA) was referred to, where even suspected illegality did not justify spying, entering without permission or violating sanctity of home---Privacy is a protected right and cannot be curtailed except strictly in accordance with law. (f) Criminal trial---- ----Electronic/CCTV evidence---Doctrine of silent witness---Distinction between routine CCTV footage and clandestine private recording---Supreme Court distinguished the present case from Zahir Jaffer case, wherein CCTV footage was obtained from permanently installed security system operating routinely at place of occurrence, extracted from original DVR/hard disk by law enforcement, forensically examined by Punjab Forensic Science Agency, and certified to be unedited with affirmative facial recognition---Such evidence was forensically verified, authenticated and primary---In present case, none of those features existed; it was not routine stationary CCTV performing ordinary security function, but secret private recording of conversation by an individual with dishonest intent, sought to be converted into basis for conviction. Cited Case: • Zahir Jaffer 2025 SCP 220 (g) Criminal trial---- ----Private surveillance---Warrantless surveillance by citizens---Judicial legitimacy refused---Supreme Court held that permitting conviction on basis of such secretly procured private recordings would amount to granting general licence to citizens to conduct warrantless surveillance of fellow citizens---Such practice would empower every citizen to act as prosecutor, technician and witness while bypassing constitutional safeguards and investigative procedures---Private surveillance violating law, Islamic principles and fundamental rights cannot be justified or clothed with judicial legitimacy. (h) Criminal appeal against acquittal---- ----Double presumption of innocence---Interference with acquittal---Scope---Trial Court acquitted respondents of offences under Ss.161, 420 and 409, P.P.C. read with S.5 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and High Court upheld acquittal---Supreme Court found no illegality, misreading or non-reading of evidence in impugned judgments---Acquitted accused enjoys double presumption of innocence: first before trial and second after acquittal---Acquittal cannot be interfered with except for strong and exceptional reasons, which were absent in the case. Disposition: Criminal Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused; acquittal of respondents No.1 and 2 recorded by Trial Court and upheld by Lahore High Court was maintained.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409, 468, 471, 420, 161, 465, 109 & 34---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5---Criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating and dishonestly inducing someone to deliver property, forgery for valuable security, use of a forged document as genuine, criminal breach of trust by public servant, public servant accepting any gratification other than legal remuneration, offence of forgery, abetment, common intention, criminal misconduct---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Rule of consistency---Allegations against the accused-petitioner were that he through forged document and with the connivance of Naib Tehsildar sold out land measuring 1410 kanals including common village lands and public grazing land fraudulently---Admittedly, the accused/petitioner was not a Government servant hence S.409, P.P.C, and S.5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 were not applicable to the extent of the petitioner in the present case---Co-accused, who were arrested by the police in the instant case, had already been granted post arrest bail by the Chief Court and another nominated accused, the then Naib Tehsildar was on interim bail, as such the present petitioner became entitled for concession of bail on the basis of rule of consistency---Moreover, there was unexplained delay of one year and two months in lodging of the FIR and the documentary evidence available on the prosecution file suggested the matter being of private transaction---Piece of land regarding which the transaction was alleged was not Government land as per revenue record, rather the same was recorded as Jagir of Raja's of the area in the revenue documents---Investigation in the matter to the extent of the present petitioner was completed and the petitioner was behind bars without any trial in the case---Nothing was available on case file to prove the entrustment of the petitioner for the offence of criminal breach of trust, hence, the application of S.409, P.P.C., in the instant matter required further inquiry to the extent of present petitioner---Other sections did not fall under the prohibitory clause of S.497,Cr.P.C.---Petitioner was local habitant of the area and the prosecution had not taken the plea of abscondance or tampering with the evidence by the accused, as such in absence of any allegation of abscondance or tempering with the prosecution evidence by the petitioner, bail was not to be withheld as punishment, because the accused/ petitioner would face the sentence, if ultimately convicted by the Trial Court at the time of conclusion of the trial---Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail---Tentative assessment---Scope---Findings made in bail order are tentative in nature and the Trial Court needs not be influenced by them in any way. Abdul Karim, Ammar Sadib and Tariq Shah for Petitioner. Faqeer Shah Special Prosecutor for Anti-Corruption Department GB for the State. Date of hearing: 13th February, 2025.

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Criminal Law—Circumstantial Evidence—Standard of Proof: ----Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 468, 471; Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(4); Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013, Ss. 15 & 19; Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 71. Accused was charged and convicted under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code, the Hudood Ordinance, and the Arms Act for murder, forgery, and illegal possession of arms. The case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including last-seen testimony, call data records, identification parade, and recoveries. The Federal Shariat Court held that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain pointing unequivocally towards the guilt of the accused. Any missing link in the chain renders the evidence unreliable. In the instant case, serious discrepancies were noted in the collection, presentation, and corroboration of circumstantial evidence. Delays in recording witness statements, failure to follow protocols in the identification parade, contradictions in call data records, and absence of credible corroboration undermined the prosecution's case. Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof in criminal cases. -----Cited Cases: Ibrahim and others v. The State (2009 SCMR 407) Imran alias Dully and another v. The State and others (2015 SCMR 155) Hashim Qasim and another v. The State (2017 SCMR 986) Yasin alias Ghulam Mustafa v. The State (2008 SCMR 336) (b) Criminal Law—Hearsay Evidence—Admissibility: ----Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 71. The supplementary statement of a witness implicating the accused was deemed inadmissible as it amounted to hearsay. The witness admitted that his knowledge about the accused's involvement was derived from information provided by investigation officials. Hearsay evidence, unless corroborated by direct evidence, cannot be relied upon for conviction. The court emphasized that only direct evidence, as stipulated under Article 71 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, is admissible. ----Cited Cases: Muhammad Azam and another v. Khalid Mehmood and another (2013 PCr.LJ 36) Sajjan Solangi v. The State (2019 SCMR 872) (c) Criminal Law—Identification Parade—Legal Requirements: ----Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 161, 164; Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 40. Identification parade proceedings were marred by procedural irregularities, including the accused being exposed to witnesses prior to the parade, absence of details regarding dummies, and failure to verify police custody duration. The Magistrate failed to record essential findings and verify compliance with prescribed procedures. The court held that such irregularities render the identification parade unreliable. -----Cited Cases: Muhammad Ayaz and others v. The State (2011 SCMR 769) Imran Ashraf and 7 others v. The State (2001 SCMR 424) (d) Criminal Law—Recovery Evidence—Admissibility and Corroboration: ----Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 161, 164; Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 40. Recovery of incriminating articles, including the weapon of offence and vehicle, failed to meet the required standard of proof. Evidence of recovery was not corroborated by credible witnesses, and procedural flaws were evident. Moreover, forensic analysis of the weapon and empties raised doubts due to irregularities in their handling and documentation. ----Cited Cases: Mian Khalid Perviz v. The State through Special Prosecutor ANF and another (2021 SCMR 522) Muhammad Tasaweer v. Hafiz Zulkarnain and 2 others (PLD 2009 SC 53) (e) Investigation by Unauthorized Officer—Validity: ----Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Police Act, 2017, S. 26(3). The investigation was conducted by an officer (Head Constable) who lacked the requisite legal authority to investigate a murder case. Under the Police Act, cases of murder must be investigated by an officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector. The investigation by an unauthorized officer vitiated the credibility of the prosecution's case. (f) Criminal Law—Benefit of Doubt—Acquittal: ----General Principles of Criminal Law. The court reiterated the principle that benefit of doubt must always be extended to the accused as a matter of right and not as a concession. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and multiple inconsistencies created significant doubts. Consequently, the appellant was acquitted. ----Cited Cases: Maqsood Ahmad v. The State and others (2017 MLD 1415) Mukhtiar Hussain v. The State (2017 MLD 745) Pirzada alias Peer v. The State (2017 PCr.LJ 605) ----Disposition: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentences set aside. Appellant acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Summary: Bail granted ---Background:The petitioner, Ch. Pervaiz Elahi, filed a petition under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, seeking post-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 09/2023 dated 03.06.2023. The FIR was registered under sections 420, 468, 471, 161, 162, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, along with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, at Police Station ACE, Lahore. The allegations involved the petitioner heading a departmental selection committee meeting on 09.08.2021, where it was claimed that the results of a written examination were altered through forgery. The petitioner had previously been conditionally granted bail, which was later revoked, leading to the current petition after a previous dismissal.-----Issues:Whether the petitioner, being an eighty-year-old citizen, is entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of age and other mitigating factors.Whether the prosecution has provided sufficient evidence to justify the denial of bail under the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.Whether the alleged forgery dated 09.08.2021 can be substantiated when the results were published by Open Testing Service on 29.07.2021.Whether the recovery of Rs. 4,100,000/- and a laptop provides reasonable grounds for the petitioner's involvement in the alleged crimes.Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court granted the petitioner's request for post-arrest bail, finding that the case required further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt. The court noted several critical points:The FIR's allegations appeared implausible as the results were published before the alleged date of forgery.The prosecution did not provide specific details about the currency notes recovered, undermining the recovery's evidentiary value.The prosecution failed to explain the two-year delay in lodging the FIR.The court emphasized that bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment and cited the Supreme Court's stance that bail can be granted if reasonable grounds to believe the accused's guilt are not sufficiently established.----Citations/Precedents:Alam Khan and Others Versus The State (2022 P Cr. LJ 338)Mehboob Hassan Versus Akhtar Islam and Others (2024 SCMR 757)Imtiaz Ahmed and another Versus The State (PLD 1997 Supreme Court 545)Mst. Bashiran Bibi Versus Nisar Ahmad Khan and Others (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 83)Salman Mushtaq and Others Versus The State through P.G. Punjab and another (2024 SCMR 14)Zaigham Ashraf Versus The State and Others (2016 SCMR 18)Tariq Bashir and 5 Others Versus The State (PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34)Manzoor and 4 Others Versus The State (PLD 1972 Supreme Court 81)Chairman, National Accountability Bureau through P.G., NAB Versus Nisar Ahmed Pathan and Others (PLD 2022 Supreme Court 475)Khalid Saigol Versus The State (PLD 1962 Supreme Court 495)Husnain Mustafa Versus The State and another (2019 SCMR 1914)

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -S. 161-Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), Ss.1(2) & 5(2)-Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.268 & 247-Centerally Administered Tribal Areas (Employees' Status) Order, 1972 [P.O. 13 of 1972]-Preamble-Taking illegal gratification by public servant-Appreciation of evidence-FIR registered under S.161, P.P.C. and S.5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, had been challenged by accused, being illegal, praying that same be quashed-Contention of accused was that he serving in Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) could not be proceeded under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as same had not been extended to FATA within the contemplation of Art.247 of the Constitution was repelled-Held, alleged offence of taking bribe took place in the office of accused, situated in the settled area where Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and West Pakistan Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance, 1961 had been extended which was protected under Art. 268 of the Constitution-Once a law had been extended to the Tribal Areas, same did not require any further extension-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was a person specific law-Condition precedent to the applicability of charging provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 were; to all the citizens in the service of Government, wherever they could be posted-Accused being a citizen of Pakistan and also in service of the Provincial Government, fulfilled both the conditions precedent to be proceeded under the Act-Accused, could not absolve himself of the charge of criminal misconduct under S.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on the mere ground that said law had not been extended to 'FATA' where he was serving-Constitutional petition being bereft of merit, was dismissed, in circumstances. Zewar Khan's case PLD 1969 SC 485; Abdul Jabbar's case PLD 2005 SC 246 and Abdul Haq Khan's case PLD 2017 SC 105 ref. Qaiser Ali Shah, AAG for the State.

Summary: Bail granted-----Background: This case involved a criminal revision petition filed by two officials of the Mirpur Development Authority (MDA) who were accused of various offences, including fraud, forgery, and bribery, under the Pakistan Penal Code (sections 34, 161, 162, 467, and 468) and the Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001 (sections 10 and 11). The appellants were arrested following a complaint and denied bail by both the Ehtesab Court and the High Court. They then appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking bail. -----Issues: 1- Did the High Court err in denying the appellants bail, given the lack of evidence against them? -----2- Does the principle of consistency entitle the appellants to the same bail relief as the co-accused? -----3- Should the appellants be kept in custody despite weak evidence and bailable offences? -----Holding / Reasoning / Outcome: The Supreme Court accepted the appeal, granting bail to the appellants, with detailed reasoning: --Lack of Evidence: The Court found that the prosecution had not collected any concrete evidence against the appellants. The only evidence—a compact disc (CD)—was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, which could not verify it due to a lack of necessary equipment. --Principle of Consistency: The co-accused, facing similar allegations, had already been granted bail. The Court ruled that the principle of consistency applied, entitling the appellants to the same relief. --Malafide Intent and Weak Investigation: The investigation by the Ehtesab Bureau appeared flawed and intended to harass the appellants. No witnesses came forward to support the allegations, and the Bureau failed to gather any substantial evidence. --Rule of Bail: The Court emphasized that bail is the rule and denial is the exception, especially when the offences are bailable and there is no solid evidence. It also noted that detaining the appellants for an indefinite period amounted to conviction without trial, which is against legal principles. --Application of the Ehtesab Bureau Act: The applicability of sections 10 and 11 of the Act would be determined during trial, and in the absence of strong evidence, the appellants could not be kept in custody indefinitely. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and granted bail to the appellants. The appellants were ordered to furnish personal bonds of one million rupees and two sureties of the same amount to the satisfaction of a judicial magistrate. -----Citations / Precedents: Muhammad Ajmal v. Muhammad Naeem and 3 others (2001 SCR 164) Held that similarly placed co-accused must be treated consistently in bail matters. Akhtar Hussain & another vs. The State & another (2010 SCR 455) Established that where the allegations are similar and other co-accused have been granted bail, the remaining accused are entitled to the same treatment.

Summary: Acquittal allowed----The appellant, had been convicted under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment (R.I) and fined Rs. 20,000, with an additional two months of simple imprisonment (S.I) in case of default. The High Court examined the available evidence and noted that there was insufficient evidence to establish the appellant's guilt. It also took into account the voluntary compromise reached between the parties outside of court. While recognizing that the offenses for which the appellant was convicted were non-compoundable, the court concluded that given the insufficient evidence and the compromise, it would be reasonable to acquit the appellant. As a result, the appeal was accepted, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charges. The appellant, who was present before the court on bail, was also discharged from his surety's liability.

Summary: Acquittal reversed ---- Issue:Whether the Lahore High Court was legally barred from entertaining a criminal revision petition against the judgment of a Special Court and whether the bar of maintainability of appeal contained in Section 10(2) of the Act 1958 extended to a Special Court created by a Provincial Government.Holding:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Lahore High Court was not legally barred from entertaining a criminal revision petition against the judgment of a Special Court appointed by the Provincial Government, and the bar of maintainability of appeal contained in Section 10(2) of the Act 1958 did not extend to such cases.Reasoning:The Supreme Court observed that Section 10(1) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958 provides a right of appeal from the judgment of a Special Court to the High Court, which also has revisional powers. The Court clarified that the bar contained in Section 10(2) of the Act 1958, which restricts the right to appeal against an order of acquittal to the Federal Government, does not apply to Special Courts appointed by Provincial Governments. It was held that any aggrieved person, including the Provincial Government, the accused, or the complainant, could approach the High Court in appeal against any order passed by a Special Judge appointed under the Act 1958. The Court relied on previous judgments such as Habib Bank Ltd. v. The State and 6 others (1993 SCMR 1853), Abdul Hafeez v. The State (PLD 1981 SC 352), and State v. Qaim Ali Shah (1992 SCMR 2192) to support its interpretation.''Section 10(1) of Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, provides that the forum for filing an appeal from the Judgment of a Special Judge is the High Court and the same Court has also been given the powers of revision. Any aggrieved person whether it be the Federal or the Provincial Government or an accused or a complainant could approach the High Court in appeal against either an order of conviction or acquittal or for that matter for the purpose of enhancement of a sentence passed by any Special Judge appointed under the Act of 1958.'' --- Facts:Chaudhry Muhammad Saleem, the respondent, was acquitted by the Senior Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Punjab, in a case under Sections 409/161 PPC read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Mian Khalid Rauf, the appellant/complainant, challenged this acquittal under Section 417(2) of the Cr.P.C. before the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the appeal on the basis that the right to appeal against an order of acquittal by a Special Judge is confined to the Federal Government under Section 10(2) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958. ---- Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the Lahore High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain appeals or revision petitions against judgments of Special Courts appointed by Provincial Governments, and the restriction on the right to appeal against an order of acquittal contained in Section 10(2) of the Act 1958 did not apply to such cases. The appellant's challenge to the acquittal of the respondent was therefore maintainable, and the case was remanded back to the Lahore High Court for reconsideration.

Summary: (a) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)- -S. 16A(a)- Chairman, National Accountability Bureau-Powers of-Transfer of case from Anti-Corruption Court to Accountability Court, application for-Chairman, National Accountability Bureau could apply before Special Judge, Anti-Corruption for transfer of a case from Anti-Corruption Court to Accountability Court. Khan Asfandyar Wali v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2001 SC 607 distinguished. Capt. (R) Nayyar Islam v. Judge Accountability Court No. III, Lahore 2012 SCMR 669 ref. (b) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)- -Ss. 2 & 16A(a)-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161-Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)-National Accountability Ordinance, 1999-Retrospective effect-Scope-FIR was registered against appellant-accused under S. 161, P.P.C. & S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and he was facing trial in the Anti-Corruption Court-Case of accused was transferred to the Accountability Court on an application made by Chairman, National Accountability Bureau-Plea of accused that the incident took place in the year 1996-1997 whereas the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, was promulgated in the year 1999, thus, the Accountability Court could not decide his case-Validity-Section 2 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 clearly stipulated that the said Ordinance shall be deemed to have come into force from the 1st of January, 1985-Where the legislature had given an enactment retrospective effect with clear intendment spelt out from its language, then no protection to the alleged vested rights of a party could be offered contrary to it-Legislature had the authority to promulgate or amend a law with retrospective effect by intendment-Plea of accused was rejected in such circumstances-Appeal was dismissed accordingly. Jamshaid Gulzar v. Federation of Pakistan 2014 SCMR 1504 ref. (c) Interpretation of statutes- -Retrospectivity-Scope-Vested right-Effect-Where the legislature had given an enactment retrospective effect with clear intendment spelt out from its language, then no protection to the alleged vested rights of a party could be offered contrary to it-Legislature had the authority to promulgate or amend a law with retrospective effect by intendment. Waqas Qadeer Dar, Prosecutor-General and Fauzi Zafar, D.P.-G. for the NAB.

Summary: Acquittal ---- Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)-------S. 5---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161---Illegal gratification---Appreciation of evidence---Trap raid case---Judicial Magistrate, absence of---Non-hearing of conversation---Accusedpersons were convicted and sentenced by Trial Court for accepting illegal gratification---Validity---Trap raid was made in absence of Judicial Magistrate, therefore, violative of law anddoubtful but non-associating Judicial Magistrate in trap raid did not vitiate all proceedings, as itwas not a mandatory requirement---Present was a case of illegal gratification received by publicservant with further allegation in rebuttal against three public servants to involve accused incommission of offence---Keeping in view the nature of case, some specific evidence wasrequired to establish charge---Contradictions in statements of eye-witnesses destroyed case ofprosecution---Trial Court failed to consider evidence in its true perspective and also failed todilate upon contradictions appearing in statements of witnesses, which had made evidence as lessreliable---None of witnesses heard conversation between accused and complainant, nor had seenexchange of money---Fact of recovery of tainted money from accused was also not free fromdoubts---Prosecution was required to discharge burden to prove that there was demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by public servant but failed which made it a case of acquittal---High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court and he wasacquitted of the charge---Appeal was allowed in circumstances.Liaquat Ali v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 1974; Muhammad Anwar v. The State 1984 PCr.LJ1399 and Dewan v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 2302 ref.