LEGAL SHORTHAND PASSAGE
Total Words= 375 Dated: 18/11/2020 @PSTC Academy, Peshawar
Prepared by: M Junaid Khan, SS Stenographer, Civil Secretariat, KP Peshawar.
For any query kindly contact me on :
Emal: mjunaidkhan1992@gmail.com /
Blogger: https://pstcacademy.blogspot.com
Contact # 0313-9790393 (Whatsapp) / 0304-9012324
YouTube Channel for daily Shorthand Dictation: https://www.youtube.com/c/EnglishShorthandLearningDictations
FACEBOOK PAGE : https://web.facebook.com/pstcacademy
My other Legal Dictations: CLICK HERE
It has been
argued by the learned Special Prosecutor appearing for the State/National
Accountability Bureau that originally the charge framed against the appellant
was in respect of an offence under section 9(a)(iii) of the National
Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and if this Court finds that 9(a)(x) of the said
Ordinance was not attracted to the case in hand then the original charge may be
considered for the purpose of upholding and maintaining the appellant’s
conviction and sentence.
2. We have attended to this aspect of the case and have found that the basic ingredients of the offence under section 9(a)(iii) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 are dishonesty and fraud through which misappropriation takes place or some property is converted to the offender’s use or for the use of any other person and such property had initially been entrusted to the offender or was under his control. In the case in hand the entire evidence produced by the prosecution was in respect of agreements having been entered into by some persons with the appellant for the purposes of investment in the appellant’s business and it is written large on the record of this case that for some time after making of such investments the appellant had been paying profits to the investors.
My other Legal Dictations: CLICK HERE
3. No evidence worth its name had been brought on the record to establish that at the time when the appellant stopped payment of profits to the investors the appellant’s business was still running in profit or the appellant was doing good business. No independent evidence had been produced by the prosecution to prove that stoppage of payment of profits by the appellant to the investors was a result of dishonesty or fraud on his part.
4. The prosecution had also failed to prove that the appellant had converted the investors’ money for his own use or for the use of any other person. Even the provisions of section 9(a)(iii) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 speak of entrustment of property to the accused person before it is misappropriated by him and in the case in hand, as already observed above, there was no element of entrustment available in the agreements between the appellant and the investors.