IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH

CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Cr. Acquittal Appeal                        :           Ghulam Shabir Chachar vs.

No. S. 40 of 2021                             Allah Rakhio &Another

For the Appellant                 :           Mr. Mazhar Ali Bhutto,Advocate

Date of hearing                    :           20.01.2022

Date of announcement      :           20.01.2022

ORDER

Agha Faisal, J.         (1)Granted. (2) Deferred. (3) This criminal acquittal appeal impugns the judgment dated 31.3.2021 rendered by the Court of learned 2^nd Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Larkana, in Criminal Case No.94/2020, whereby it was observed that the prosecution had failed to prove its case in respect of an alleged offence under Section 489-F P.P.C, hence, the accused/ respondent No.1 was acquitted of the charge.

2. Appellant’s counsel submits that the amounts are due from the accused/ respondent No.1 and the recourse to civil recovery proceedings would entail unnecessary time. Learned counsel also adverted to the deposition of the complainant in order to augment his submission.

3. The impugned judgment appears to have carefully cataloged the evidence and upon analysis thereof concluded that no case for dishonest issuance of a cheque was made out. The learned trial Judge has recorded that there are serious contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence and based thereupon no conviction could be maintained.

4. It is settled law that an accused is innocent till proven guilty and exoneration by a court of competent jurisdiction confirms the same. Such a vested right may only merit interferenceif the court below has disregarded material evidence, misread evidence and / or received such evidence illegally.Interference in acquittal ought not to be warranted merely because on re-appraisal of the evidence a different conclusion could also be possible. If, however, the conclusion reached by that Court was such that no reasonable person would conceivably reach the same and was impossible then this Court would interfere in exceptional cases on overwhelming proof resulting in conclusive and irresistible conclusion and that too with a view only to avoid grave miscarriage of justice. The august Supreme Court has envisaged a pivotal test in such matters, being that the finding sought to be interfered with, after scrutiny, should be found as artificial, shocking and ridiculous. No such case has been made out before this Court in the present case.

5. This Court has given careful consideration to the contents of the impugned judgment and is of the view that that the appellant’s counsel has remained unable to identify any infirmity therein, meriting interference of this Court. In view of foregoing, this appeal is dismissed in limine.

                                                                    JUDGE