THE
HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal
Accountability Acquittal Appeal No. 27 of 2012
Present: Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto
Mr. Justice Abdul Mobeen Lakho
Appellant : The State/NAB through Mr. R.D.
Kalhoro, Special Prosecutor NAB
Respondent : Sohail Aziz Bari through Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Chandio
advocate
Date
of Hearing : 12.11.2021
Date
of decision : 23.11.2021
JUDGMENT
NAIMATULLAH
PHULPOTO, J.- The State through
Chairman NAB has filed this appeal under Section 32 of NAO 1999 against
impugned judgment dated 30.08.2012, passed by learned Accountability Court No.III
Sindh at Karachi in Reference No. 04/2006 (The State vs. Sohail Aziz Bari),
whereby, after full-dressed trial, the respondent has been acquitted. Appeal
was admitted to regular hearing.
2. Learned Special Prosecutor NAB has
contended that the learned Court below by the impugned order wrongfully and
illegally acquitted the accused/respondent despite the fact that there was
sufficient evidence against him on the record. It has been further argued that respondent
misused his authority by using challan in the name of Suleman and subsequently
transferred the plot to the name of his wife. It is submitted that the learned
trial Court did not appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses according
to settled principles of law and passed the judgment in slipshod manner. He,
lastly submitted that instant acquittal appeal may be allowed as prayed by
setting aside the impugned judgment.
3. Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Chandio advocate for
respondent argued that after assessing the evidence adduced at trial, the
learned trial Court concluded that prosecution had failed to prove its’ case
against the respondent and hence he was acquitted of the charges by assigning
sound reasons. Learned counsel for respondent further argued that scope of
appeal against acquittal is narrow and limited and after acquittal of respondent,
presumption of innocence is doubled.
4. In order to appreciate the contentions
of learned counsel for the parties, we have carefully gone the impugned judgment
dated 30.08.2012, passed by learned Accountability Court No.III, Sindh at Karachi.
Relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under:
“From the above
evidence and record of the KDA it is established that the prosecution neither
could give an idea value of the plot in the year 1996 nor could produce any
document showing the reserved price of the plot at the relevant time was @
5250/- per Sq. Yd. and the accused caused loss to the public exchequer to the
tone of Rs.3,947, 390/-. From the prosecution own evidence it is established
that no loss was caused to the National Exchequer, the government had allotted
the plots in the year 1975 at the total value of Rs.9000/- but the purchaser
deposited 2,66,050/-. This show how the government caused the loss admittedly
the case does not fall within the jurisdiction of National Accountability
Ordinance. Accused has denied the allegations in statement U/s. 342 Cr.P.C and
also examined himself on oath, he produced original receipt of payment,
original Power of Attorney and the original notification regarding his posting.
All these documents have not been challenged by the prosecution. Mostly
prosecution witnesses have emphasized on the lay out plan which is not part of
the charge even otherwise it is not the title document, as such all that
evidence is not helpful for the prosecution. From the evidence produced by the
prosecution it is appeared that accused is involved in this reference with malafide
intention to the officials of KDA due to jealousy in their department and the
prosecution has failed to show that the accused has caused loss to the National
Exchequer amount to Rs.3,947,390/-. I hold this point not proved.
Point No.6
In view of findings
above points No. 1 to 5, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to show
that the factum of loss as alleged by it to the government, in evidence has
produced on record showing that the accused has misused his authority and
committed corruption. From the evidence produced by the prosecution itself
established that the disputed plot was not allotted to any person. In this
regard evidence of Investigation officer would show that upto what extent the
prosecution has proved the acquisition which is reproduced as under:
“It is correct to
suggest that I have not inquired the procedure that when the file was sent for
preparation of challan and putting the entry of same in daily collection
register about the plot No.BS-61, Block-7, F.B.Area, Karachi. DCR is not the
allotment register. It is correct to suggest that I have stated that com-6,
Block-2, Clifton Karachi the plot of 600 Sq. Yd. was allotted to Muhammad Wasil
S/o Muhammad Sharif dated 08-02-1977 and that I have not produced the paid up
copy of original challan initial payment made by him for the said plot and that
I have relied upon the carbon copy of allotment order of said plot which is
available in the office of the Executive Engineer Clifton Karachi and I have
not produced any paid up copy of the payment of original challan of subject
plot, made by Muhammad Wasil S/o Muhammad Sharif. As in the record of Executive
Engineer Clifton Karachi only allotment order, possession order and
acknowledgement of possession are available, not the copies of any paid up
challans. It is a fact that I have not produced original coy of allotment in
the name of Muhammad Wasil S/o Muhammad Sharif from Land Department KDA and
that the allotment register of Land Department showing the allotment entry in
his name. It is correct to suggest that I have not investigated the case on
point that without stamps and diary, how this carbon copy reached to the office
of the Executive Engineer Clifton Karachi Division, while as per rules, it
should be diarized and stamped then it can be sent to the office of the XEN
Clifton Karachi. I have not made a prosecution witness Muhammad Wasil S/o
Muhammad Sharif as he was not traceable and he was resident of Hyderabad.
Although I have tried and recorded the statement of Suleman Memon at Hyderabad
but I could not traced out the address of Muhammad Wali S/o Muhammad Sharif, as
at page No. 81 of the I.R only his name is mentioned (Note: Karachi but not Hyderabad). It is correct to suggest that
beside this allotment order in the name of Muhammad Wasil S/o Muhammad Sharif I
could not produce any documentation or correspondence of Muhammad Wasil from
the date of allotment i.e. 08-02-1977 till the date of inquiry i.e.
08-08-2001.”
The abovementioned
reproduced portion of the statement of the I.O reveals that the prosecution has
failed to establish the allegations levelled against the accused. Accused in
his statement u/s 342 Cr.P.C has denied the charge and claimed himself innocent
even in his statement of oath he has stated that he has been victimized due to
the enmity of the KDA officials and prayed to the Court to acquit. While Special
Prosecutor was of the view that it is a fit case for conviction, as the accused
has misused his authority and caused loss the State Exchequer by corrupt,
dishonest and illegal means to obtain gain for himself and thereby committed
offence of corruption and corrupt practices as defined U/s 9(a)(iv) and (vi) of
NAO 1999. But I am not agree with him that the conviction can be awarded in
view of the provisions mentioned above. As the prosecution has miserably failed
to prove the guilt of the accused. Prosecution has to make out a reasonable
case against the accused charge U/s 9(a)(iv) and (vi), if the prosecution
succeeded in making out a reasonable case to the satisfaction of the Court it
could be deemed to have discharge the prima facie burden of prove and then the
burden of prove shifted to the accused to rebut the presumption of guilt. In
criminal cases the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt and the onus at any stage shifts on to the
accused to prove his innocence or make up for the liability and failure of the
prosecution to produce evidence to establish the guilt of accused. It is only
after the prosecution is on the evidence adduced by it, succeeded in rising
reasonable interference of the guilt of the accused unless the same is rebuttal
but this case the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of
the offence, thus no duty is cost on the accused to prove his innocence. In
view of the above discussion, I am of the view that prosecution has failed to
establish the guilt beyond any shadow of doubt, therefore, accused is given
benefit of doubt and is hereby acquitted from charge of this case. He is on
bail, his bail bond stands discharged. ”
5. A careful perusal of the impugned judgment
shows that trial Court has discussed in detail all material evidence produced
by the prosecution at trial.
6. It
is evident from the record that respondent did not transfer theplot in the name
of his wife. Respondent in his statement recorded on oath under Section 340(2)
Cr.P.C has stated that plot in reference was purchased by his wife Zakia Sohail
from Suleman Memon s/o Ali Murad Memon in the year 1978 in consideration of
Rs.420,000/-, he produced receipt at Ex.59. Prosecution witnesses nowhere denied
that the accused was attorney of Suleman Memon s/o Ali Murad Memon even the
Power of Attorney Ex.60 was produced in original by the respondent and stated
that plot was not transferred in the name of his wife due to delay caused by
the department he served a notice upon KDA in 1989 so that challan was issued
by Recovery Department for the balance occupancy value of said plot in 1991
which he paid. P.W-13 Bashir Hussain Shah has confirmed that on 09.12.1991
possession order along with site plan was issued for the said plot. Prosecution
has miserably failed to produce any document in order to show that loss in any
manner was caused to the Government exchequer. The findings of the trial court
recorded while discussing point No.6 in the impugned judgment clearly show that
prosecution had failed to establish its’ case against the respondent.
7. It is also to be kept in mind that the
present appeal is against acquittal and the golden thread which runs through
the administration of criminal justice while hearing the appeal against the
acquittal is that even if two views are possible their innocence, the view
which is favourable to the accused should be accepted and the finding of
acquittal recorded by the Trial Court should not be disturbed by the appellate
Court. The reason is that while passing the order of acquittal, the presumption
of innocence in favor of the accused is re-enforced. In case of acquittal,
there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption
of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that every person should be presumed to be innocence unless he is
proved to be guilty by a competent Court and secondly the accused having
secured an acquittal, the presumption of innocence is, re-enforced and strengthened
by the Trial Court.
8. So far appeal against acquittal is concerned, it appears that trial Court
has assigned sound reasons for recording acquittal in favour of
respondent/accused Sohail Aziz Bari. Moreover, after acquittal, acquitted
accused has 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 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. Said accused
have acquired now a triple presumption of innocence which could not be
dispelled by Special Prosecutor NAB on any score. Reliance is placed on
the case of The State v. Abdul
Khaliq, (PLD 2011 SC 554).
9. For the
above stated reasons, we have no hesitation to hold that judgment of acquittal
passed by the trial Court is based on reasonable possible view, this Court
should not disturb the acquittal.
10. Considering
the facts and circumstances in wake of the above cited legal position, we do
not consider it to be a fit case to interfere it. Consequently, Accountability
Appeal against acquittal is dismissed.
JUDGE
JUDGE