1988-89 Rs.7,58,759.31 1989-90 Rs.10,77,035,52 1990-91 Rs.24,91,428.08 1991-92 Rs.7,94,037.02JUDGMENT ' This judgment shall decide Criminal Appeal No.372 to 376 of 2001, as these proceed against common judgment o learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Rawalpindi.
2. Vide F.I.R. 32, dated 16-7-1998 Additional Director Anti-Corruption Rawalpindi, filed a complaint at Police Station A.C.E. Rawalpindi Region stating that the respondent a Veterniary Officer in theoffice of Deputy Director Livestock and Dairy Development Rawalpindi, has been wilfully absent from duty since 1-5-1993. He was incharge of the Divisional Store of Medicine/Instruments of the said office during the years 1988-89 to 30-3-1993. Internal audits were conducted and certain irregularities were found. The respondent was charge-sheeted for misconduct and wilful absence, embezzlement/ misappropriation of medicine and instrument and fictitious maintenance of record medicine/instrument. The Inquiry Officer held the respondent guilty of charge No.1 and recommended that the case may be handed over to the A.C.E. For further investigation and necessary action. As regards charge No.1 respondent has been provided opportunity of personal hearing before the Authority on 20-11-1997 against penalty from removal from service. Against the charge No. 2 the Inquiry Officer has reported that embezzlement/misappropriation of medicine/instrument was committed by the respondent himself as follows year-wise:-- 1992- Dec.92.Rs.6,69,549.50 ' The matter, was sent up to the learned Special Judge who directed the Investigating Officer to file five separate challans. This was one. The charge was framed in all these cases on 24-1-2001. On the same date an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Was filed.
This application was kept pending vide order, dated 1-2-2001. As it was observed that sufficient material is available on record to connect the accused with the commission of the offence and that the application will be considered after some evidence is brought. On 14-2-2001 and 1-3-2001 the case was adjourned, inter alia, on the request of the respondent for adjournment. On 19-3-2001 two P.Ws. Were recorded. On 27-3-2001 one P.W. Was recorded. On 28-3-2001 four P.Ws were recorded. On 29-3-2001 three P.Ws. Were recorded while two CWs were recorded. It was reported by the learned Prosecutor that two P.Ws. Have died who were accordingly given up. At this stage the said application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Was reactivated. Arguments were heard on 30-3- 2001 and respondent was acquitted in all these cues. I am told by all present that the learned Presiding Officer retired from service on 31-3-2001.
3. Learned Assistant Advocate-General argues that for the reasonsnot decipherable the learned Special Judge proceeded to halt the trial when it was almost conclvded and after discussing the evidence alreadyrecorded proceeded to acquit the accused under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. He also referred to the said peculiar aspect of the matter noted above. He relies on the case of S.C. Sabjally v. A. Hamid Khan and another (1999 M LD 1645) to urge that the application was not competent when the trial had almost concluded. Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqui, learned counsel for the- respondent on the other hand contends that there is no bar spelt out in the law and application can be considered and decided at any stage. He has then referred to the evidence on record to urge that the respondent has been lawfully acquitted.
4.I have examined the trial Court records. The details of the proceedings before the learned trial Court have already been noted by a me above. Now it will be seen that no less than 10 P.Ws and 2 were recorded. The learned Prosecutor had not closed evidence as two more witnesses including the complainant were still there to be recorded. I would restrain myself from commenting upon the proceedings. However, one thing is certain that the proceeding do reflect anxiety of the learned trial Court to conclude the matter. This will be apparent from recording said witnesses in time span of about nine days. Now in the impugned judgment the learned trial Court, has discussed the matter as trial has stood concluded in the manner prescribed by law. He had referred to the evidence on record in some detail and has concluded that the respondent has been made a scapegoat and there is no probability of this being convicted.
5.The stage and circumstances in which the learned trial Court has opted to exercise power under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Do go to throw shroud on the proceedings conducted by the learned trial Court as to what motivated him to first rush post haste in recording the almost entire evidence of prosecution and then to bring the matter to a screeching halt and to acquit the respondent under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. I am told that only two more witnesses were to be examined including the complainant. Apart from reference to the evidence on record, the learned trial Court has even relied upon the contents of bail granting order of this Court. To my mind, the matter is squarely covered not only by the facts but also law declared in the said case of S.C. Sabjally of this Court. I will of course not deem it proper to comment upon the merits of the case. All the criminal appeals are accordingly allowed and the impugned orders passed by the learned Special Judge Anti- Corruption Rawlpindi are set aside. The result would be that the trial shall be deemed to be pending and after concluding the same in the manner prescribed -learned trial Court shall decide the case on its merits, preferably within 8 weeks of receipt of the judgment of this Court to be remitted to the learned trial Court immediately. The learned trial Court shall summon the respondent who will be filing bonds in the terms of the earlier bail granting order to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
' Trial Court record's be remitted back immediately.