IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S-17 of 2018

Appellant                        :       Abdul Rauf s/o Ghulam Hyder Soomro

Through Mr.Irfan Badar Abbasi, Advocate

Complainant                   :       Ahmed Ali s/o Wali Muhammad Mugheri

Through Mr.Muhammad Ashiq Dhamraho,

                                                            Advocate

State                                :       Mr.Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi, A.P.G 

Date of hearing               :       02.11.2018          

Date of decision              :       02.11.2018                   

O R D E R

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The appellant/complainant has sought for leave to appeal against judgment dated 30.03.2018, passed by learned special Judge Anti-Corruption (Provincial) Larkana whereby the private respondent has been acquitted of the charge.

2.                The facts in brief necessary for making the instant order are that the appellant/complainant sought for his appointment as Primary School Teacher by way of making payment of Rs.620,000/- to the private respondent, he was appointed accordingly. Subsequently, the appellant/complainant came to know that the appointment order which is issued in his favour is fake and false. The appellant/complainant then filed a direct complaint before learned trial Court for prosecution of the private respondent for the above said offence, it was brought on record after usual enquiry.

3.                At trial, the private respondent did not plead guilty to the charge, and complainant to prove it examined himself and his witnesses Inamullah and Momin, and then closed the side.

4.                The private respondent during course of his examination under section 342 Cr.PC denied the prosecution’s allegation by pleading innocence. He did not examine anyone in his defence or himself on oath in disproof of the prosecution’s allegation.

5.                On evaluation of evidence so produced by the appellant/complainant, learned trial Court acquitted the private respondent by way of judgment, as stated above.

6.                It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant/complainant that the learned trial Court has acquitted the private respondent of the charge without lawful justification, ignoring the fraud on his part. By contending so, he sought for appropriate action against the private respondent.

7.                Learned A.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the private respondent by supporting the impugned judgment have sought for dismissal of the instant criminal acquittal appeal and application for leave to appeal.

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

9.                As per requirement of the law, the appointments against the public service are to be made on merits. In the instant case, no post was advertised by the government for the appointment. No selection committee was constituted to make appointment. The appellant/complainant apparently intended to be appointed as Primary School Teacher other than merit without going through the requisite recruitment process and to achieve such object as per him he paid Rs.620,000/- to the private respondent, who then supplied appointment order to him as Primary School Teacher, which was found to be fake and false. Nothing has been brought by the appellant/complainant, which may establish that the private respondent in any way was competent to make appointment. In that situation, the private respondent could hardly be linked with issuance of alleged fake/false appointment order as Primary School Teacher in favour of the appellant/complainant against payment. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court was right to record acquittal the private respondent by extending him benefit of doubt.

10.              In case of State and others vs. Abdul Khaliq and others     (PLD 2011 SC-554), it is held by the Hon’ble 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”.

11.              Nothing has been brought on record by the appellant/complainant, which may suggest that the impugned judgment has been passed by learned trial Magistrate in arbitrary or cursory manner, which may call for any interference by this Court.  

12.              In view of facts and reasons discussed above, the instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal together with application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

                                                                                          J U D G E

--