ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 131 of 2023

(Amjad vs. Abdul Majid Khan and others)

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

1. For orders on office objection a/w reply at flag A

2. For orders on M.A.No. 2713/2023

3. For hearing of main case

07.06.2023

Mr. Mukhtiar Ahmed Rahu advocate for the appellant

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged by the appellant that he is dealing with the sale of urea fertilizer, which the private respondents insisted him to be sold after making them bribe of Rs.600/- per bag, part payment whereof was made to them. By making such allegation, he lodged FIR for the said incident with Anti-Corruption Police at Karachi. Subsequently, the private respondents were acquitted u/s 249-A Cr.P.C by learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial) Karachi vide order dated 25.01.2023, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court by preferring the instant Acquittal Appeal.

2. It is contended by the appellant that no proper order with regard to cognizance of the case was passed, therefore, the acquittal of the private respondents being illegal is liable to be examined by this Court.

3. Heard arguments and perused the record.

4. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about 03 days such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. On consecutive investigation, the subject FIR was recommended by the police to be cancelled under “C” Class. In these premises learned trial Court was right to record acquittal of private respondents u/s 249-A Cr.P.C by making a conclusion that the charge against them is groundless and there is no probability of their being convicted for the alleged offence; it all was done as per impugned order after taking cognizance of the case on interim report; such acquittal, therefore, is not found arbitrary or cursory to be examined by this Court.

5. In case of State and others vs. Abdul Khaliq and others (PLD 2011 SC-554), it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that;

“The scope of interference in appeal against acquittal is most narrow and limited, because in an acquittal the presumption of innocence is significantly added to the cardinal rule of criminal jurisprudence, that an accused shall be presumed to be innocent until proved guilty; in other words, the presumption of innocence is doubled. The courts shall be very slow in interfering with such an acquittal judgment, unless it is shown to be perverse, passed in gross violation of law, suffering from the errors of grave misreading or non-reading of the evidence; such judgments should not be lightly interfered and heavy burden lies on the prosecution to rebut the presumption of innocence which the accused has earned and attained on account of his acquittal. Interference in a judgment of acquittal is rare and the prosecution must show that there are glaring errors of law and fact committed by the Court in arriving at the decision, which would result into grave miscarriage of justice; the acquittal judgment is perfunctory or wholly artificial or a shocking conclusion has been drawn. Judgment of acquittal should not be interjected until the findings are perverse, arbitrary, foolish, artificial, speculative and ridiculous. The Court of appeal should not interfere simply for the reason that on the reappraisal of the evidence a different conclusion could possibly be arrived at, the factual conclusions should not be upset, except when palpably perverse, suffering from serious and material factual infirmities”.

6. In view of above, the instant Acquittal Appeal fails and is dismissed in limine along with listed applications.

JUDGE