' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.--- Through this petition, petitioner Prosecutor General NAB seeks leave to appeal against order dated 17-4-2002 passed by a learned Division Bench of Peshawar High Court, Peshawar whereby Ehtesab Criminal Appeal No,1 of 2002 filed by respondent was accepted.
2. Briefly, stated facts leading to the filing of instant petition are that respondent Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpao was arrayed as one of the accused in Reference No,1 of 2000 filed by Chairman National Accountability Bureau on 7-2-2000 under section 24 (b) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the Ordinance") for committing offence under sections 9/10 of the Ordinance before Accountability Court No,2 Peshawar. The said Court after issuance of summons/warrants and proclamation under section 87 Cr.P.0 against respondent declared him proclaimed offender vide judgment dated 9-8-2000, as he was not available on the captioned address. Thereafter on 28-8-2000 Reference No,2/2000 was filed against respondent by Chairman National Accountability Bureau under section 31A of the Ordinance for his trial in absentia before learned Accountability Court No,III, Peshawar. The said Accountability Court issued fresh summons for service on respondent which were returned unserved. Original record of Reference No,1 of 2000 was also produced before the Court which eventually declared him proclaimed offender and vide judgment dated 30-9-2000 convicted him under section 31A of the Ordinance and sentenced to suffer R.I. For three years. Perpetual Non-Bailable Warrants of arrest were also issued against him.
The said judgment was assailed in Ehtesab Criminal Appeal No,1 of 2002 before learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar which was allowed and conviction and sentence of the respondent was set aside vide impugned judgment.
3. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Jaffar Hashmi, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and Syed Zafar Abbas Zaidi, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondent at length and have gone through the records and proceedings of the case at minute particulars.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of NAB contended that appeal of respondent before learned High Court was not maintainable as it was filed by unauthorized person. The power of attorney said to have been executed in favour of Sikandar Hayat Khan son of respondent was neither attested nor authenticated by Embassy of Pakistan at London as required under Article 95 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat. The conviction of the respondent was recorded after due process of law and it was fully established that respondent was wilfully evading and avoiding the process of law and that the whereabouts of the respondent were not know to his servants also.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent controverted the above contentions and supported the impugned judgment. He contended that respondent left the country for U.K on 31-1- 2000 and the reference in question was filed on 7-2-2000. There was nothing pending against the respondent to evade or avoid process of law. It was on 3-2-2000 section 31A was inserted in the Ordinance on which date he was not available in the country. As respondent was not available in Pakistan, therefore, he has no knowledge about the issuance of process of law against him, as such proceeding under section 31A of the Ordinance are not sustainable in the eye of law. As regards maintainability of the appeal before learned Peshawar High Court he contended that judgment was announced by Accountability Court on 20-9-2000 and appeal was filed on 30-9-2000, but was returned for certain deficiencies for its re-submission on or before 14-10-2000. After meeting out the deficiencies appeal was filed on 13-10-2000 along with photo copy of the power of the attorney. It was on the direction of Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court original power of attorney was also filed on 8-1-2001. But in any case respondent surrendered before learned High Court on 6-1-2002 and the appeal was admitted for full hearing on 8-2-2002. He lastly contended that since respondent voluntarily surrendered before the Court, hence conviction and sentence under section 31A of the Ordinance were not warranted by law.
6. Admittedly, respondent left Pakistan for London on 31-1-2000 on which date offence under section 31A of the Ordinance was not available on statute book and was added on 3-2-2000 in the Ordinance, thus it could not be applied with retrospective effect. Reference No,1 was filed on 7-2- 2000 and judgment was delivered on 9-8-2000 wherein respondent was declared as proclaimed offender. It was on 28-8-2000 Reference No,2 in question was filed under section 31A of the Ordinance wherein respondent was convicted on 30-9-2000. It is pertinent to refer here that it was on 6-1-2002 respondent voluntarily surrendered himself before the High Court where appeal against his conviction was pending. The finding of acquittal recorded by learned High Court are unexceptional and do not require interference. It is well-settled principle of law that judgment of acquittal cannot be interfered with unless it is found on face of it perverse, arbitrary, capricious or based on non- reading or misreading of evidence, which petitioner has failed to prove. Resultantly, the petition being devoid of force is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.