ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 463 of 2019

(Basheer Ahmed vs. Dr. Mirza Mohsin Ali Jaah)

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For hearing of main case

15.06.2023

Mr. Riaz Ali Samtio, advocate for the appellant

Ms. Rubina Qadir Deputy Prosecutor General

---------------------------------------

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is the case of the prosecution that wife of the appellant was being ill was improperly treated by the private respondent, on private faisla, the private respondent was imposed penalty which he paid to the appellant in shape of cheques, 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 VI-Judicial Magistrate Malir Karachi vide judgment dated 19.07.2019, 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 delay of about 05 months, which suggest concoction and learned trial Magistrate has recorded valid reasons for acquittal of the private respondent, therefore such acquittal is not found 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.

JUDGE