Sardar Abdul Hameed Khan, J.--This is a Revision Petition against the acquittal order of Judge Banks Special Court AJK dated 30.4.2002, whereby the Respondents No, 1 to 3 were acquitted in respect of charges levelled under Sections 468, 467, 409 and 471, APC for want of proof. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed this revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners filed written arguments and relied upon 1991 SCM R 599.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents also argued the case and filed written arguments, whereby reiterated stands taken by them in the Court below and defended the impugned order. The learned counsel for respondents placed reliance on the following case law:--
1. 1986 P.Cr.L.J. 843;
2. NLR 1988 Criminal-Kar, 260;
3. PLD 1997 Lhr. 144.
We have heard the learned counsel for parties and gone through the record of the case utmost care.
Without going into details of the facts, it is noted that this is a case wherein, some loans were given to the shopkeepers and other businessmen is alleged to be disbursed without adopting procedure and maintaining the record according to law. The complainant Mr. Fazal-urRehman Zonal Head of NBP Muzaffarabad by a written application dated 16.12.1994 reported the matter that during his supervisory/visit of the Branches of the Banks and to judge their performance during the visit to Authmaqam (Kundal Shahi). It was observed that Muhammad Hanif Bukhari Respondent No, 1, from 20.4.1994 to 8.9.1994 made bogus entries of different names with the assistance, of subordinate staff for his personal gain, disbursed some loans under the head TRF, whereupon, a case was registered against the respondents and after investigation, a case was Challaned before the trial Court. The trial Court after conducting the necessary procedure and after recording the statements of a large number of prosecution witnesses as well as some defence witnesses including the statement of Respondent No, 1 Muhammad Hanif Bukhari. After hearing the parties, acquitted all the accused persons of the charges by concluding that most important witness of the prosecution complainant Fazal ur Rehman has admitted the document Exb. DA/4 produced by accused in defence, wherein the entries regarding TRF are made and the same was issued by Zonal Office in the light of instructions issued in the meeting of the Mangers with Chief Zonal Head, dated 28.8.1993. Instructions regarding disbursement of some advances included in these instructions are reproduced as under for convenience sake:-- "ADVANCES The position of overall advances and recovery thereof was appreciated by the Zonal Chief.
Branches were allowed Temporary Credit accommodations to soung and selected traders.
Anyhow the Mangers of Main Branch, Garhi Dupatta, Hattian and Authmaqam were again advised to pressurize the defaulting borrowers for recovery of old stuck-up advances and to submit the progress reportation fort-nightly basis daly commented each loan account for placing the name before worthy Provincial Chief. If the borrowers are not coming forward for payment then on trial basis recovery suit should be instituted against the defaulting borrowers who have not paid even a single penny. Moreover write off proposals complete in all respects be submitted to us of such borrowers who have paid principal amount of the advance with full justification/ recommendations for necessary approval of the Head office so that outstanding of stuck up advances should be reduced."
To elucidate the point in issue, it deems proper to explain the tertn TRF. An Audit report Exh./142 dated 10.07.1997, which was made basis for the initiation of present case against the respondents is on the record, wherein, it is mentioned that various type of advances/finances are existing at the branches as on 14.09.1994, the date of present case however, no finances have been disbursed thereafter. This report has been passed on 14.09.1994. At serial No, 1, the type of advance is mentioned as "Temporary Running Finance" abbreviated as TRF.
While going through the impugned order, we have also inspected the ledger of the Bank available on the record, wherein the TRF advances are recorded and some other advances are also recorded, which shows that this is a case of similar finances to run the business of local shopkeepers and businessm en etc. Out of these loanees, statements of some of these have been recorded by the trial Court. The overall appreciation of the evidence recorded the trial Court shows that no offences mentioned in the Challan has been made out in the circumstances of the case, rather it lends some support to the version of the accused persons that the complainant due to his personal reasons fabricated this whole case. Hence we are not inclined to interfere in the acquittal order which has been passed in a legal fashion.
Moreover, all the accused persons have been acquitted of the charges for want of proof as has been observed by the trial Court that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons. A careful perusal of the evidence of the parties shows that no non-reading or misreading of the evidence by the trial Court is found, rather the evidence has been appreciated in a legal fashion which resulted in impugned acquittal order. It is now a settled principle of criminal justice that when acquittal order is recorded in favour of accused persons, the accused persons have double presumption of innocence as it has been held by the apex Court of AJ&K in 2009 SCR 470 and 2011 SCR 324.
In view of above stated position and keeping in view the dictum of the apex Court as laid down in supra noted judgments, we found no force in this revision petition, therefore, the order of acquittal recorded in favour of respondents is maintained and the revision petition stands dismissed.