Spl. Anti-Terrorism Acq. Appeal No.36 of 2008
Date Order with Signature of the Judge
For hearing of case.
9th April, 2018.
None present for the appellant.
Raja Hassan Nawaz, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Ms. Rahat Ahsan, Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh.
>>>>> <<<<<
Aftab Ahmed Gorar, J.:- This Criminal Acquittal Appeal under section 25(4-A) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was instituted on 21.11.2008 against the acquittal of respondents 1 to 3 recorded through impugned judgment dated 16.10.2008. Record shows that after filing the instant appeal the appellant and his counsel were not appearing before the Court and on 24.07.2017 it came on record that Mr. Aman Sherin Khattak, Advocate is no more surviving in this word, consequently direct notice to appellant was issued but none has bothered to appear before this Court, which is apparent from the record as on 21.03.2018, strictly as a last chance hearing was adjourned for today’s date with note of caution that in case of non-appearance on behalf of appellant, appropriate orders shall be passed. Today despite repeated calls neither the appellant nor his counsel is in attendance.
2. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the impugned judgment is well-reasoned and speaking one and there is hardly any improbability or infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court, which does not warrant any interference by this Court as the trial Court in its judgment has thoroughly thrashed the evidence of prosecution side and then reached at the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the respondents. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh by adopting the arguments of learned counsel for respondent No.2 also supported the impugned judgment.
3. Deliberate and intentional absence of appellant shows that perhaps the appellant is only interested to linger on the case just to drag the respondents 1 to 3 in this case. After scrutinizing and scanning the entire record, we have reached to an unequivocal conclusion that the accused/respondents were rightly acquitted by the trial Court and there is hardly any improbability or infirmity in the impugned order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court, which being based on sound and cogent reasons does not warrant any interference by this Court and is accordingly maintained. This is a Criminal Acquittal Appeal and we cannot lose sight of doctrine of presumption of double innocence, which is attached to such proceedings. We, therefore, dismiss this Special Anti-Terrorism Acquittal Appeal having no merits for consideration.
J U D G E
*Aamir/PS* J U D G E