IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH

AT LARKANA

Cr. Acq. App.S-25of 2021   :           Rehmatullah Khoso vs.

The State&Another

For the Appellant                 :           Mr. Nadeem Ahmed Khoso, Advocate

Date of hearing                    :           21.02.2022.

Date of order                         :           21.02.2022

ORDER

Agha Faisal, J.         The present acquittal appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 22.02.2021, whereby the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Jacobabad was pleased to acquit the accused in proceedings under sections 489-F, 406, 420 P.P.C.

2.         Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Magistrate did not appreciate the evidence in its proper prospective and in the presence of the manifest business relationship, the complaint could not be found to be without merit.

3.         Heard and perused.  The learned Magistrate has observed that while there may becommercial activity between the parties, however, same does not imply that the criminal offence is made out automatically.  It is recorded that the complainant did not mention the date of giving cash amount; presented cheque unjustifiably belatedly; registration of F.I.R after the delay of 29 days; and could not demonstrate from the entire evidence that the cheque was issued with dishonest intention. Insofar as section 406 P.P.C is concerned, the learned Trial Court was pleased to observe that in the absence of any clear entrustment no offence of criminal breach of trust is made out. The learned Magistrate also observed that even if there was a breach of contract, the same might be actionable in the realm of civil jurisdiction, however, does not constitute an offence inter alia under section 420 P.P.C.

4. The impugned judgment appears to have carefully cataloged the evidence and upon analysis thereof concluded that no case for dishonest issuance of a cheque was made out. The learned trial Judge has recorded that there are serious contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence and based thereupon no conviction could be maintained.

5.         The observations and findings of the learned trial court were asked to be read out by the learned counsel and then he was queried as to whether they were borne from the record / evidence; he replied in the affirmative. It is settled law that an accused is innocent till proven guilty and exoneration by a court of competent jurisdiction confirms the same. Such a vested right may only merit interference if the court below has disregarded material evidence, misread evidence and / or received such evidence illegally. Interference in acquittal ought not to be warranted merely because on re-appraisal of the evidence a different conclusion could also be possible. If, however, the conclusion reached by that Court was such that no reasonable person would conceivably reach the same and was impossible then this Court would interfere in exceptional cases on overwhelming proof resulting in conclusive and irresistible conclusion and that too with a view only to avoid grave miscarriage of justice. The august Supreme Court has envisaged a pivotal test in such matters, being that the finding sought to be interfered with, after scrutiny, should be found as artificial, shocking and ridiculous. No such case has been made out before this Court in the present case.

6.         This Court has given careful consideration to the contents of the impugned judgment and is of the view that that the appellant’s counsel has remained unable to identify any infirmity therein, meriting interference of this Court. In view of foregoing, this appeal is dismissed.

.

JUDGE