1. {{PAGE NO 146 IS MISSINH}}acquittal under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C.-Validity-Valid and convincing reason had been given by Trial Court for acquittal of said respondents-An order of acquittal only warrants interference when the conclusion arrived at is perverse, arbitrary, artificial or capricious- Even otherwise, when a Court of competent jurisdiction acquits an accused of the charge after a regular trial, then double presumption of innocence will always attached with the order of acquittal and very strong and exceptional grounds are required to set aside order of acquittal-Criminal .
2. [Despite providing of 15 opportunities, prosec^tD not produced its evidence. Accused was rightly acquitted under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C, by Trial Court].Ahsan Raza Hashmi, Advocate.Date of hearing: 22nd May, 2012.ORDERABDUL SAMI KHAN, J. - This criminal appeal under Section 417-A(2), Cr.P.C, has been filed against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate dated 29.03,2010 in respect of case F.I.R. No. 298/07, dated 06.11.2007 registered under Sections 452,365, 511,148,149, P.P.C, at Police Station Chaubara, District Layyah whereby respondents Nos. 2 to 13 were acquitted.Were present but the learned Judicial Magistrate instead of recording the evidence has acquitted the accused/respondents Nos. 2 to 13 under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C, which is not warranted by law.2. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the impugned judgment.3. The learned Trial Magistrate while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal has observed as undents per record, this case has been registered against the accused on 06.11.2007 for the offence under Sections 365, 452, 511, 148, 149, P.P.C, at Police Station Chaubara.
3. Charge has been framed against the accused for the offence under Sections 148/452/365, P.P.C, on 26.05.2008. The prosecution has been given round about 15 clear opportunities for the completion of their evidence but they lingered on the matter on different pretexts. As per National Judicial Policy cases are required to be decided at the earliest to give relief to the parties at the earliest.
4. This case has been registered on 06.11.2007 but since that period the prosecution has failed to complete their evidence. Today the complainant alongwith one witness is present and he is gaining time and again and wants to linger on the matter on this and that pretext. He is playing seek and hide with the Court and wants delay in the decision of the case. The accused are facing of trial since long period. The days have gone when the parties were to seek justice and to wait for justice for many yearn. Now the situation has been changed. Every party is required to show performance on their side. But in this case the prosecution/complairtant is responsible sible for delay in recording of evidence. Hence, in view of above discussion prima facie the prosecution has lost interest in this cape and just wants to delay the matter2013 Mst. Zubaida V. The State Cr.C.
5. 149(Abdul Sami Khan, J.)so that the accused could face further agony in the trial of this case.
6. Hence, petition in hand is hereby accepted and the accused/petitioners namely Allah Yar, Muhammad Hussain, Muhammad Bakhsh, Maqsood Hussain, Zahoor Hussain, Ejaz Hussain and Riaz Hussain present in the Court on bail are hereby acquitted of the charge. Their sureties stand discharged from their liabilities. Case property if any be deaIt with in accordance with law,"4. I have noted that valid and convincing reasons have been given by the learned Trial Court for the acquittal of respondents Nos. 2 to 13. It is to be noted that an order of acquittal only warrants interference when the conclusion arrived at is perverse, arbitrary, artificial or capricious, In this regard reliance is placed on the case of Jeharigir v. Aminullah and others (20TO SCMR 491), wherein at page 494, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under:-"It is well- settled by now that "there are certain limitations on the power of the Appellate Court to convert acquittal into a. Conviction, It is well-settled that "Appellate Court would not interfere with acquittal merely because on reappraisal of the evidence it comes to the conclusion different from that of the Court acquitting the accused,- provided both the conclusions are reasonably possible. If, however; the conclusion reached by that Court was such that no reasonable person would conceivably reach the same and was impossible then this Court would interfere in exceptional cases on overwhelming proof resulting in conclusive and irresistible conclusion; and that too with a view only to avoid grave miscarriage of justice and for no other' purpose. The' important test visualized in these cases, in this behalf was that the finding sought to be interfered with, after scrutiny under the forgoing searching light, should be found wholly as artificial, shocking and ridiculous". The viewtaken by this Court in Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamaraz Khan PLD 1985 SC 11 is well- known that "in all appeal against acquittal this Court would not, on principle, ordinarily interfere and instead would give due weight and consideration to the findings of Court acquitting the accused. This approach is slightly different from that in ah appeal against conviction when leave is granted only for the re-appraisement of evidence which then is undertaken so as to see that benefit of every reasonable doubt should be extended to the accused. This difference of approach is mainly conditioned by the fact that the acquittal carries with it the two well-accepted presumptions: on initial, that, till found guiIty, the accused is innocent; and two that again after the trial a Court below confirmed the assumption of innocence. The will not carry the Second presumption and will also thus lose the first one if bri points having conclusive effect on the end result the Court below: (a) disregarded material evidence; (b) misread such evidence; (c) received such evidence illegally". This principle was also followed in Muhammad Iqbal v. Sanaullah PLD 1997 SC 569, State v. Farman Hussain PLD 1995 SC 1, Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamaraz Khan PLD 1985 SC 11, Ahmad v. Crown PLD 1951 FC 107, Abdul Majid v. * Superintendent of Legal Affairs, Government of Pakistan PLD 1964 SC 426, State v. Bashir PLD 1997 SC 408, Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Javed PLD , 1976 SC 452, Shahzado v. State PLD 1977 SC 413; Farmanullah v. Qadeem Khan 2001 SCM R 1474 and Khadim Hussain v. Manzoor Hussain Shah 2002 SCM R 261:The reasons given by the Trial Court while acquitting respondents are neither perverse nor arbitrary or artificial and the impugned order does not call for interference of this Court.2013 Mst. Zubaida V. The State Cr.C.151(Abdul Sami Khan, J.)8. Even otherwise, when a Court of competent jurisdiction acquits an accused of the charge after a regular trial, then double presumption of" innocence will always attached with the order of acquittal and very strong and exceptional grounds are required to set aside order of acquittal.
7. Reference can be made to the case of Iftikhar Hussain and others v. The State (20Q4 SCMR 1185) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under:-"It is well-settled principle of criminal administration of justice that when an accused is acquitted of the charge, he enjoys double presumption of innocence in his favour and Courts seized with acquittal appeal under Section 417, Cr.P.C, are obliged to be very careful in dislodging such presumption. Undoubtedly, two views are always possible while appreciating the evidence available on record, therefore, for such reason. And in order to avoid the' muItiplicity of litigation; it is always insisted that the Court should , follow the recognized principles for interference in the acquittal judgment as held in the case of Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 11 that the Appellate Court seized with the acquittal appeal under Section 417, Cr.P.C, is competent to interfere in the order challenged before it provided it has been established that the Trial Court has disregarded material evidence or misread such evidence or received such evidence.,."The impugned judgment of learned Trial Court regarding the acquittal of respondents Nos. 2 to 13 is based on properly appreciation of material available on record. Learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order justifying interference by this Court. The nutshell of the above discussion is that this appeal has no merit, and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.Criminal .#tbsVol. XXXII#the#tbsKey Law Reports#the#tbs152 Cr.C.#the