THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Criminal Accountability Acquittal Appeal No. 02 of 2012

 

               Present:                 Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto

                                                                                                    Mr. Justice Abdul Mobeen Lakho

 

 

 

Appellant                          :               The State/NAB through Mr. Riaz Alam Special Prosecutor NAB

 

 

Respondent                       :               Maqsood Ahmed through Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Chandio advocate

 

Date of Hearing                :               27.10.2021

 

Date of decision                :              27.10.2021

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J. Respondent/accused Maqsood Ahmed was tried by learned Accountability Court No.III, Sindh at Karachi in References No. 12, 13 and 14 of 2005. After regular trial, vide judgment dated 26.12.2011, respondent was acquitted of the charges.

2.         Brief facts leading to the filing of the appeal against acquittal a mentioned in the impugned judgment are as under:

“M/s. Thatta Cement Company Limited is a State owned unit controlled and supervised by the Ministry of Industries and Production, Government of Pakistan through State Cement Corporation of Pakistan (SCCP) and the assets of the company are wholly and solely owned by the Federal Government. At the relevant time, the accused No.1 was Managing Director and accused No.2 was Manager (Sales & Dispatch) of M/s. TCCL and as such they come within the definition of holders of public office. The accused No.3 is attorney/ authorized signatory of M/s United Marketing Corporation, Hyderabad.

On receipt of complaint from the Managing Director, TCCL, (Shaikh Merajudin Shamsi) that the above accused in connivance with each other indulged in corruption and corrupt practices by making unauthorized excess payment of rebate, an investigation was authorized. The I.O has submitted his report. This reference pertains to excess rebate payment during the period from 1997-98.

Investigation report shows that during the years 1997-98, as per rebate policy/ procedure given by M/s SCCP, M/s TCCL was permitted to allow payment of rebate in the shape of cement to the stockists/ groups. In other words, against due rebate amount earned in terms of money, equivalent quantity of cement against the said rebate amount was to be issued. The following was the authorized procedure/ policy for payment of rebate:

To whom allowed

Booking limit (M.Tons)

Rebate per M.Ton (in Rs)

Period

SCCP’s letter No. & date

Stockiest Govt. Parties consumers

200 Any quantity

50

50

50

24.07.96

31.10.96

MKT/Prices 22.07.96

Stockists if on cash Govt Agencies Smaller Town Direct consumers

200

200

500

100

200

30

80

50

80

50

 

01.11.96

31.12.96

MKT/Rebate 30.10.96

Direct consumers

200

50

01.01.97

01.03.97

01.04.97

28.02.97

31.03.97

30.06.97

MKT/7/3109/31-12-96

MKT7/33996/05-03-97

MKT/4643/16-04-97

 

 That as per policy, rebate was to be allowed if the booking of cement was made on cash payment by bank draft or pay order but no rebate was admissible on sale of cement on credit. In utter violation of rebate policy/ procedure given by SCCP, accused No. 1 with active connivance and collusion of accused No. 2 and 3 dishonestly or fraudulently allowed rebate at the time of booking, either on customer order forms or against sale of cement on credit, that provided undue favour and benefit to various dealers. The unauthorized/ excess rebate allowed during the period 1996-97 is as under:

Party Name

Rebate allowed as per books

Actual rebate allowable

Excess rebate allowed

M/s Ahmed Khan

Rs.8,38,540/-

Rs.1,06,350/-

Rs.7,32,190/-

M/s Afghan Cement and M.C Quetta

Rs.5,13,520/-

Rs.4,17,350/-

Rs.96,170/-

M/s Haresh Kumar

Rs.4,07,400/-

Rs.1,84,700/-

Rs.2,22,700/-

M/s Haresh Kumar

Rs.3,92,430/-

Rs.2,64,840/-

Rs.1,27,590/-

M/s Qamer-ul-Islam

Rs.1,37,680/-

Rs.92,800/-

Rs.44,880/-

M/s Salamat Agency

Rs.9,90,250/-

Rs.7,16,180/-

Rs.2,74,070/-

M/s Techno Itern

Rs.6,28,000/-

Rs.2,68,900/-

Rs.3,59,100/-

M/s Unicom Cement

Rs.2,30,170/-

Rs.76,900/-

Rs.1,53,270/-

M/s United Marketing

Rs.83,62,178/-

Rs.80,52,960/-

Rs.3,09,218/-

M/s Uttam Perkash

Rs.11,27,460/-

Rs.8,67,650/-

Rs.2,59,810/-

M/s XEN, PWD

Rs.4,62,400/-

Rs.2,97,400/-

Rs.1,65,000/-

M/s Zahid Hussain

Rs.1,96,750

Rs.1,85,600/-

Rs.11,150/-

Total

Rs.1,42,86,778/-

Rs.1,15,31,630/-

Rs.27,55,148/-

 

The small cement dealers and arrested accused persons entered into voluntary return (VR) and plea bargain (PB) respectively which was accepted by the competent authority. The details are as under:

S#

NAME OF PARTY

AMOUNT (RS)

1.

M/s Haresh Kumar, Thatta

2,22,700/-

2.

M/s Mahesh Kumar, Thatta

1,27,590/-

3.

M/s Uttam Perkash, Thatta

2,59,810/-

4.

M/s Zahid Hussain, Thatta

11,150/-

5.

M/s Afghan Cement, Quetta

96,170/-

6.

M/s United Marketing Corp. Hyderabad (50%) Muhammad Iqbal Zai)

1,54,609/-

 

Total

8,72,029/-

 

The above amount which has been received when deducted from the outstanding amount comes to as under:

Total amount outstanding                  :           Rs.27,55,148/-

Received through VR & PB                :           Rs.8,72,029/-

            Amount outstanding as liability   :           Rs.18,83,119/-

 

That following is the breakup of outstanding liability against accused No.3 and parties/accused who are not traceable, on account of rebate for the year 1996-97 allowed/ extended by accused No. 1 & 2.

 

S#

NAME OF PARTY

LIABILITY (RS)

REMARKS

1.

M/s XEN WAPDA, Thatta

1,65,000/-

Not traceable

2.

M/s Ahmed Khan, Karachi

7,32,190/-

Not traceable

3.

M/s Salamat Agency, Karachi

2,74,070/-

Not traceable

4.

M/s Techno International, Karachi

3,59,100/-

Not traceable

5.

M/s Qamar ul Islam Quetta

44,880/-

Not traceable

6.

i. M/s Unicon Cement, Hyderabad

ii. M/s United Marketing Hyderabad

3,07,879/-

Accused No.3

 

Total

8,72,029/-

-

 

The total liability is as follows:

 

Liability created by accused No.3                    :           Rs.3,07,879/-

Liability of untraceable accused                       :           Rs.15,75,240/-

Total                                                              :           Rs.18,83,119/-

 

That the evidence collected during investigation establishes that accused No.1 & 2 as holders of public office in active connivance with each other and accused No.3 and others misused their authority by allowing rebate which was not admissible and conferred undue benefit of Rs.18,83,119/- to accused Nos. 3 & others and willfully failed to exercise their authority. The funds of M/s TCCL were allowed to be misappropriated and wrongful loss resulted to the Company. The accused thereby committed the offence of corruption and corrupt practice as defined in Section 9(a), punishable under Section 10 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and Schedule thereto.”

 

3.         After filing of the Reference against the respondent, learned trial Court, framed charge against respondent at Ex.2, respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.         In order to prove its’ case, prosecution examined as many as 07 witnesses, who exhibited various documents in support of the prosecution case, where after the prosecution closed its’ side.

5.         Trial Court recorded statement of respondents/accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C at Ex.31, in which he denied prosecution allegations and claimed his false implication in this case. He did not lead evidence in his defence, but examined himself on oath at Ex.32 and produced credit sale letter, rebate allowed as Ex.35 and 36.

6.         Learned trial court heard arguments learned counsel for the parties and after assessment of evidence, vide judgment dated 26.12.2011 acquitted the respondent mainly for the following reasons:

“The entire case revolves around the policy of rebate issued by SCCP because it has been stated that the said policy has been violated under which the rebate was allowed only on cash payment, by bank draft or pay order, as it is also alleged the rebate was allowed on sale of cement on credit. The prosecution witnesses have also failed to produce the alleged policy and PW-1 Syed Qasim Raza has stated that Exh-8/1 is the policy. Charge against accused is that he in active connivance and in collusion with Syed Riaz-ul-Hassan Rizvi Ex-Managing Director of Thatta Cement Company Limited dishonestly and fraudulently allowed rebate and caused loss to the Government Exchequer. As I have discussed in above that the accused was not authorized to approve the rebate to stockists, as Exh-8/1 reveals prior approval from the competent authority was must for allowing the rebate. The actual culprit was Syed Riaz-ul-Hassan Rizvi, who indulged in corruption and corrupt practices by making unauthorized and excess rebate in shape of cement to the stockist/group. As per policy of SCCP the rebate was to be allowed and the booking of cement, which was to be made on cash payment instead of cheque, bank draft or pay order, thus no rebate was admissible on sale of cement on credit. Said accused has filed an application for return of illegal gain and offer was accepted by the Chairman NAB vide letter No.7(1027)/2005-S/Adl.Dir(IM-4) dated 26-08-2005 for Rs.21.854 Million exclusive 15% and payment in lump sum in shape of 400 acres of land situated in Thatta district. The accused Syed Riaz-ul-Hassan Rizvi on acceptance of plea bargain was released. In view above it is clear that real culprit was Syed Riaz-ul-Hassan Rizvi Ex-Managing Director. Accused Maqsood Ahmed was not authorized to allow the rebate hence whatever loss was caused to the public exchequer was by Syed Riaz-ul-Hassan Rizvi and it has been returned by the accused No. 1 Syed Riaz-ul-Hassan Rizvi. It will be relevant that the application U/s 25(b) of NAO, 1999 was approved by the Chairman NAB with direction that “accused should complete the transfer of land through mutation of 400 acres land situated in Thatta district in favour of Thatta Cement Company Limited, in case of default or refusal the above land in favour of the said company (TCCL), the accused will again be arrested to face the trial of the instant references.” All this shows that prosecution has miserably failed to prove point Nos. 2 & 3 against accused Maqsood Ahmed, I hold these points in negative.”

 

7.         NAB/Special prosecutor being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the respondent filed above appeal.

8.         We have carefully heard learned Special Prosecutor NAB as well as learned advocate for the respondent and perused the findings of the acquittal recorded by the trial court. Trial court rightly held that accused was not authorized to approve the rebate to stockists, as Exh-8/1 revealed prior approval from the competent authority was must for allowing the rebate. The main accused Syed Riaz-ul-Hassan Rizvi, who was indulged in corruption and corrupt practices by making unauthorized and excess rebate in shape of cement to the stockist/group had filed an application for return of illegal gain and offer was accepted by the Chairman NAB for Rs.21.854 Million exclusive 15% and payment in lump sum in shape of 400 acres of land situated in Thatta district. Accused Syed Riaz-ul-Hassan Rizvi on acceptance of plea bargain was released. Accused Maqsood Ahmed was not authorized to allow the rebate hence whatever loss was caused to the public exchequer was by Syed Riaz-ul-Hassan Rizvi.

9.         We agree with the findings recorded by trial court. So far appeal against acquittal is concerned, it appears that trial Court has assigned sound reasons for recording acquittal in favour of respondent/accused Maqsood Ahmed.  Moreover, after acquittal, acquitted accused have acquired presumption of double innocence.  It is settled law 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 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 perversearbitraryfoolishartificialspeculative 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.  Said accused have acquired now a triple presumption of innocence which could not be dispelled by complainant’s Counsel on any score.  Reliance is placed on the case of The State v. Abdul Khaliq, (PLD 2011 SC 554).   

10.     For the above stated reasons, we find no merit in the acquittal appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.

11.       These are the reasons for the short order announced by us on 27.10.2021.

 

JUDGE

JUDGE