Rehmat Hussain Jafferi, J.--The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.3.2002 passed by the learned Judge, Accountability Court No, 1, Karachi by which the learned Judge acquitted the respondents. The state through Prosecutor General, National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad has filed the present appeal.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Ch. Mukhtar Ahmad, Respondent No, 1 was Minister of Commerce whereas the Respondent No, 2 Brig. (Retd.) Aslam Hayat Qureshi was Additional Secretary and Incharge Secretary of Ministry of Commerce. It is alleged that on 17.9.2005 the Respondent No, 2 called a meeting of Board of Directors of Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan at Lahore in which two proposals for purchase of Irri 6 Rice by two foreign buyers namely M/s. Rustal Trading Limited. Geneva and Government of Togo at the rate of US $ 221 and 218 per metric ton respectively were placed for consideration. It is further alleged that without tendering process and against the decision of Economic Co-ordination Committee (ECC) of the Cabinet, the proposals were considered, however, when the regular Secretary Mr. Suleman Farooqui took the charg the negotiation against started and the rate was raised to US $ 242 per metric ton but again it was against the decision of the ECC as the same was done without tendering process.
Subsequently, the agreement was executed. It is further alleged that the Respondent No, 1 being the Minister of Commerce had full knowledge of international market price which was US$ 280 per metric ton, had agreed to the said proposal and then the matter was sent to Cabinet which approved the transaction. It is also alleged that the respondents alongwith co-accused in connivance with each other sold the rice much lower than the international market price of-US $ 280 per metric ton, therefore, caused loss to the public exchequer to the tune of Rs, 67,801,335,00.
After investigating the matter, the Chairman NAB filed the Reference before the Accountability Court where the respondents were tried but acquitted as mentioned above under the impugned judgment.
3. We have heard the ADPGA for the appellant, advocate for the respondents and perused the record of this case very carefully.
4. The learned ADPGA has stated that the prosecution has proved the case through the evidence of PWs-1, 7 and 8 who were Directors. Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan; that the Respondent No, 1 presided over the meeting dated 17.9.1995 where the proposals of two foreign buyers were placed before the Board for consideration; that the Respondent. No, 1 had pressurized the Board of Directors to approve the said proposals; that the Respondent No, 2 was Minister therefore, it was in his knowledge that the international price was US $ 280 per metric ton but he did not give consideration to the said aspect; and that both the respondents in connivance with all other co- accused have committed the offence.
5. Conversely the learned advocate for the respondents has stated that in the meeting dated 17.9.1995 no decision was taken as the meeting was adjourned for consideration of proposals; that thereafter the Respondent No, 1 did not attend any meeting but the rate was approved by the Board of Directors of Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan which was approved by the Cabinet; that the international rate of US $ 280 per metric ton was never presented before the Board nor it was presented before the Minister, the Respondent No, 1, therefore, the respondents had no knowledge about the international rate; and that the trial Court has considered the evidence in accordance with the law, therefore, he has supported the impugned judgment.
6. Mr. Shahadat Awan holding brief on behalf of Mr. M. Ilyas Khan, Advocate for Respondent No, 2 has also argued on behalf Of Respondent No, 2.
7. We have given due consideration to the arguments, gone through the evidence with the assistance of the learned ADPGA and found that the case of prosecution rests upon three witnesses viz. PW-1 Ghulam Abbas Soomro PW-7 Aftab Ahmad Memon and PW-8 Abdul Karim Ansari. Directors of the Board of Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan. Their evidence reveals that on 17.9.1995 a meeting of Board was held in the office of Respondent No, 2 where he attended the meeting and placed two proposals of foreign buyers for purchase of rice but during the meeting he left it. The matter was considered by the Directors and then it was adjourned for consideration of price as the market price was not. available. They also admitted that thereafter the Respondent No, 2 did not attend the meeting. From the above evidence it is clear that in the meeting dated 17.9.1995 the role of the Respondent No, 2 was only to produce two proposals of foreign buyers and thereafter he left the meeting. The matter was discused by the Directors of the Board and then it was adjourned to consider the market price of the price thereafter he did not attend the meeting, as such, the learned trial Court has rightly exonerated the Respondent No 2 from the charge.
8. As regards the involvement of the Respondent No, 1 he was Minister of Commerce. There is no evidence available on the record to show that he had any knowledge of international price or any proposals was put up before him showing the international market price of the rice. It is pointed out that the final approval was given by the Cabinet, as such, the learned trial Court has rightly examined the evidence in respect of the Respondent No, 1 and arrived at right and proper conclusion.
9. This is an acquittal appeal. Criteria for examining such appeal is different from the appeal of conviction. Under the appeal of acquittal the accused has double presumption of innocence to his credit, therefore, the Courts are very slow to interfere in such orders unless it is shown that the judgment is perverse or the Court while recording the acquittal order had not taken into consideration important incriminating evidence, etc. Reference is invited to the case of Rasheed Ahmad vs. Muhammad Nawaz (2006 SCM R 1152) and Ghulam Sikandar vs. Mamrez Khan (PLD 1985 S.C. 11).
10.We have examined the evidence and found that the learned trial Judge has considered the evidence in accordance with law. There is no misreading or non-reading of the, evidence. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, as such, it does not require any interference.
11.Above are the reasons of our short order dated 7.8.2007 by which we had dismissed the appeal.