JUDGMENT SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S-13 of 2021.

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

For hearing of main case.

20.01.2022

                        Mr. Abdul Rehman Bhutto, Advocate for the appellant.

                        Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl.P.G for the State.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.-The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant criminal acquittal appeal are that the appellant already paid money to the private respondent for his appointment in OGDCL; the appointment order so issued was found to be false and then the money so paid by the appellant to the private respondent was returned by him in shape of cheque; it was bounced by the concerned Bank, when it was presented there for encashment; consequently, the appellant lodged FIR with police against the private respondent for issuing a cheque in his favour dishonestly, committing with him fraud, forgery and cheating; the private respondent was challaned and after due trial was convicted under section 420 PPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.45,000/- and in default whereof to undergo imprisonment for one month by learned trial Magistrate, vide judgment dated 25.01.2021; on appeal by the private respondent, it was set aside by learned Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 08.02.2021, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court by way of instant criminal acquittal appeal.  

2.                     It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned appellate Court has recorded acquittal of the private respondent without lawful justification, which needs to be examined by this Court. Learned Addl.P.G for the State by supporting the impugned judgment has sought for dismissal of the instant criminal acquittal appeal.

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

4.                     The appellant was seeking his appointment in OGCL other than the merit by making payment, which appears to be surprising. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about six months; such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. The learned trial Magistrate has already recorded acquittal of the private respondent for offence  punishable under section 489-F and 406 PPC by making observation that those sections have not been proved against him. The learned appellate Court has rightly recorded acquittal of the appellant for an offence punishable under section 420 PPC by making elaborating discussion of the evidence by way of impugned judgment, which is not found to be arbitrary or cursory to be interfered with by this Court.

5.         In case of State and others vs. Abdul Khaliq  and others (PLD 2011 SC-554), it has been observed 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”.

6.         In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, instant criminal acquittal appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly. JUDGE