JUDGMENT SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl. Acquittal Appeal.No.S-55 of 2022.

(Meeran Bux Vs. Ghulam Qadir & others)

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                        ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

                       

                                                                                               

01.  For orders on office objection “A”.

02.  For orders on M.A.No.1981/2022

03.  For hearing of main case.

11.05.2023

 

                        Mr. Asif Ali Abdul Razzak Soomro, Advocate for appellant.

           

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

 

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- Facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant criminal acquittal appeal are that the appellant paid Rs.750,000/- to the private respondents for appointment of his son Mehtab Hussain in civil service who then provided him appointment order for son of the appellant in Health Department which on verification was found to be fake; on being approached, they returned the said amount to the appellant in shape of cheque, which was bounced by the concerned bank when it was presented there for encashment; the appellant when narrated such facts to the private respondents, they threatened him to be killed, if he would approach them again for return of his money, for that the present case was registered. On conclusion of trial, the private respondents were acquitted by learned 1st Judicial Magistrate, Kashmore, vide judgment dated 13.04.2022, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court by preferring the instant Crl.Acquittal Appeal.

             It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that learned trial Court has recorded acquittal of the private respondents without appreciating the evidence properly; therefore, their acquittal is to be examined by this Court. 

            Heard arguments and perused the record.

            The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about 10 days; such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked; the appellant is claiming to be an Advocate by profession, yet was getting his son appointed in civil service other than merits through the private respondents having no official status even, which appears to be surprising. In these circumstances, learned trial Magistrate was right to record acquittal of the private respondents by extending them benefit of doubt, which is not found arbitrary or cursory to be interfered with by this Court.

            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”.

 

            In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, the instant criminal acquittal appeal fails and it is dismissed in limine together with listed application.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          JUDGE