IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S- 53 of 2016

 

 

 

 

Appellant/Complainant :      Muhammad Ikram Kamboh

through Mr. Shabbir Ali Bozdar, Advocate

 

Respondents                    :     Muhammad Ali and Shoukat Ali

through Mr. Parmanand Advocate

                                                           

The State through Syed Sardar Ali Shah, Deputy Prosecutor General

                                                           

Date of hearing               :       19.04.2019          

Date of decision             :       19.04.2019                             

 

JUDGMENT

 

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant criminal acquittal appeal are that the private respondents allegedly issued a cheque in favour of the appellant/complainant dishonestly, it was bounced by the bank when was produced there for encashment and the appellant/complainant was threatened by the private respondents of murder when he approached them for return of his money, for that he lodged an FIR with Police, the private respondents on due investigation were challaned by the police before 1st Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Rohri to face trial for the above said offence. At trial, the private respondents did not plead guilty to the charge and prosecution to prove it, examined the appellant/complainant and his witnesses and then closed the side. The private respondents in their statements recorded u/s 342 Cr.P C denied the prosecutions’ allegation by pleading innocence. Respondent Shoukat Ali did not examine himself on oath or any of his witness in his defence, however, respondent Muhammad Ali examined himself on oath and his witnesses Liaquat Ali and Nadeemullah in his defence. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Magistrate acquitted the private respondents vide judgment dated 26.3.2016 which is impugned by the appellant/complainant before this Court by way of instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal U/s 417(2)-A Cr.P.C.

3.                 It is contended by learned counsel of the appellant/complainant that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the private respondents beyond shadow of doubt by producing cogent evidence which has not been considered by learned trial Magistrate in its true prospect without lawful justification. By contending so, he sought for adequate action against the private respondents.

4.                 Learned D.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the private respondents by supporting the impugned judgment have sought for dismissal of the instant criminal acquittal appeal.

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

6.                 Admittedly, both the parties were having a business transaction, the dispute if any between them was relating to settlement of accounts. Be that as it may, the FIR of the incident was lodged with delay of seven months; such delay could not be overlooked. The 161 Cr.P.C statements of the P.Ws as per SIO/SIP Amjad Iqbal were recorded with further delay of 27 days to FIR. In that situation, no much reliance could be placed upon the evidence of the witnesses. No original cheque which allegedly was bounced was secured by the police. In these circumstances, learned trial Magistrate was right to record acquittal of the private respondents by extending them benefit of doubt.

7.                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”.

 

   

 

8.                In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly.

                                                                                                                                                                                Judge

 

 

ARBROHI