IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S- 09 of 2016

Appellant/Complainant : Allah Ditto Jatt through

Mr. Rukhsar Ahmed M.Junejo, Advocate

Respondents : Gulab, Siraj, Bashir and Wahid Bux

alias Abdul Wahid, through Mr. J.K Jarwar Advocate

The State, through Mr. Aftab Ahmed Shar

Additional Prosecutor General

Date of hearing : 18.02.2019

Date of decision : 18.02.2019

JUDGMENT

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The appellant/complainant by way of instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal has impugned order dated 05.01.2016, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Kandiaro, whereby he has acquitted the private respondents of the charge for offence punishable under Sections 395, 506/2 PPC, outcome of FIR Crime No.202/2013 of P.S Meharbapur.

2. The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant criminal acquittal appeal are that the private respondents after committing trespass into house of appellant/complainant Allahditto after keeping him and his witnesses under fear of death robbed them of their gold ornaments and clothes as are detailed in FIR for that they were booked and reported upon by the police before Court of law for their trial.

3. At trial, the private respondents were acquitted of the charge by learned trial Court by exercising its powers u/s 265-K Cr.P.C, without being asked for by anyone to do so. It is in these circumstances, the appellant/complainant has filed the instant acquittal appeal as stated above.

4. It is contended by learned counsel of the appellant/complainant that learned trial Court has acquitted the private respondents of the charge without providing chance of hearing to the appellant/complainant, which is against the spirit of natural justice and mandate contained by Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which prescribe chance of fair trial to every person. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of impugned order with direction to learned trial Court to proceed with the case in accordance with law.

5. Learned Additional PG for the State did not support the impugned order by contending that the prosecution could not be denied chance to prove its case in accordance with law.

6. Learned counsel for the private respondents has sought for dismissal of the instant acquittal appeal by contending that the regular trial against the private respondents would serve no purpose.

7. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

8. The reasons which apparently prevailed with learned trial Court to record acquittal of the private respondents were that the FIR of the incident has been lodged with considerable delay, the witnesses are interested and there is no recovery of any sort from the private respondents. It is true that the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of more than two months but there could be made no denial to the fact that it has been explained plausibly in FIR itself. Delay even otherwise could hardly be a reason for recording acquittal of the accused at preliminary stage of trial. As per FIR the incident has taken place inside the house of appellant/complainant, witnesses were natural, they as such could not be disbelieved in summarily manner without recording their evidence under the pretext that they were interested. There may not be recovery of any sort from private respondents but this fact alone could hardly be a reason to dismiss the case of the prosecution at in summarily manner by recoding acquittal of the private respondents u/s 265-K Cr.P.C, which indeed was not asked for by any one.

9. In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, the impugned order could not be sustained. It is set aside with direction to learned trial Court to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

10. The private respondents who were in attendance before learned trial Court on bail should remain on same bail subject to execution of fresh bail bonds.

11. Instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Judge

ARBROHI