MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM Versus STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment and conviction of the appellant under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Special Court, Anti-Corruption, Faisalabad, sentencing him to three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question was whether the failure of the trial court to put incriminating pieces of evidence to the accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 caused prejudice to the defense. The Lahore High Court held that omitting to put incriminating evidence to the accused under Section 342, Cr.P.C. caused material prejudice, rendering the trial flawed. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and remanded the matter back to the trial court to properly record the statement of the appellant under Section 342, Cr.P.C. by putting all incriminating circumstances to him before deciding the case afresh on merits, laying down the principle that mandatory examination of an accused regarding incriminating evidence is essential to a fair trial.
- Whether failure to put incriminating evidence to an accused in his statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 causes prejudice to the accused?
- Can a criminal case be remanded back to the trial court for recording a proper statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is it a legal obligation for the trial court to put all incriminating prosecution evidence to the accused during examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.232 of 1999 filed by Muhammad Ibrahim, who was convicted and sentenced by Special Court, Anti‑Corruption, Faisalabad on 26‑3‑1999 to undergo three years' R.I. under section 409, P.P.C. with a fine of Rs.35,000, in default thereof six months' R.I.
2. Brief allegation against the appellant was that while Chairman, District Usher and Zakat Committee No.2 Chak No.325 G.B. in 1985 he withdrew Rs.29,000 through two diGerent cheques and misappropriated that amount, while version of the appellant during the trial before the trial Court and also in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. was that he used the said amount on the construction of primary school.
3. Learned counsel fog the appellant has read before me, the prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. and the judgment of the learned trial Court. After going through the statement of the appellant recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., the incriminating evidence which has come on record through the evidence of Muhammad Iqbal, Zafar Ali and, Riaz Hussain P.W.2, the Auditor Ushr and Zakat Committee Department. The said incriminating evidence was never put up to the appellant in his statement recorded under 342, Cr.P.C. it has caused prejudice to the appellant.
4. I have asked learned A.A.‑G. to assist me in this case. He also concedes and stated that it was the legal obligation on the part of the learned trial Court to have put the question about incriminating evidence to the appellant in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C.
5. After hearing the parties, this appeal is accepted. Appellant shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The case is remanded back to the learned trial Court, who should put the questions of incriminating prosecution evidence to the appellant as required under the law and gives him an opportunity to answer in this regard in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. and thereafter, decide the case on merits. With these observations, this appeal stands disposed of.
N.H.Q./M‑1175/L
Case remanded.