ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI
Criminal Acquittal
Appeal No.293 of 2022
( Muhammad Saleem versus the State
and others)
DATE ORDER
WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
1. For orders on office objection a/w reply at
flag A
2. For orders on M.A.No.5858/2022 (Exp/A)
3. For hearing of main case
13.06.2023
Mr. Aurangzeb
Mugheri, advocate for the appellant
---------------------------------------
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the
private respondent issued dishonestly cheques in favour of the appellant towards
fulfillment of the obligation, those were bounced when were presented before
the concerned Banks for encashment, for that the present case was registered.
On conclusion of trial, the private respondent was acquitted by learned XXIII
Judicial Magistrate Karachi South vide judgment dated 26.02.2022 which the
appellant has impugned before this Court by preferring the instant criminal
acquittal appeal.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel
for the appellant that the learned trial Magistrate has recorded acquittal of
the private respondent without lawful justification and on the basis of
improper assessment of the evidence; therefore, such acquittal is to be
examined by this Court.
3. Heard arguments and perused the record.
4. The FIR of the incident has been lodged
with considerable delay spreading over months. The parties were having business
deals with each other. A civil suit between them on same cause is pending
adjudication before the civil Court having jurisdiction. In these
circumstances, learned Magistrate was right to record acquittal of private
respondent by extending him benefit of doubt as such his acquittal 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 held 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 above,
the instant Acquittal Appeal fails, it is dismissed in limine
together with the listed application(s).
JUDGE