1. ' SADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, J.--Respondents/accused Sikiladho Rahimoon, Mst. Asma Khaskheli were tried by learned Sessions Judge, Umerkot in Sessions Case No,86 of 2009 arising out of F.I.R. No,118 of 2007 lodged by appellant/complainant Wali Muhammad Rajar at Police Station Umerkot on 20-8- 2007 for alleged offence under sections 408, 418, 420, 422, 423, 467, 468, 474, 475, P.P.C.
2. ' After due session trial both the above-named accused person& were acquitted by learned Sessions Judge, Umerkot vide his judgment dated 29-5-2010.
3. ' Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by above acquittal judgment, appellant/complainant Wali Muhammad Rajar filed this Criminal Acquittal Appeal under section 417(2-A), Cr.P.C. Challenging the above acquittals and requesting this Court to set aside the above judgment after due legal scrutiny or pass any appropriate legal order as warranted by law. The prosecution story, in brief, as given in the F.I.R. Abovesaid is as under:- "Complaint is that I am Accountant in the Institution Thar DEEP Mithi. On 10-7-2007 vide Roznamcha Entry No,11 @ 1500 hours of Police Station Umerkot was lodged missing report of Ex- Credit Officer Sikiladho Rahimoon on missing him. On 6-7-2007 to 14-8-2007 Sikiladho was missed for whom Driver of Thar DEEP namely Jewan Oad disclosed that on 6-7-2007 in the night at about 8-00 pm he left the Sikildho at his house and thereafter till 10-7-2007 on contact on Telephone the message received that Sikiladho is there but due to non-attendance of office and nonattendance of Phone I have lodged such missing report, Thereafter, on order of CEO of TRDP Unit obtained information regarding the case of Mehandro and I on the order of Manager Maqsood C.0 Bux Ali Jamali and Mr. Boorji Mal received information and Manager Maqsood Ali proved in the Habib Bank Chorr Sikioladho Rahimoon, Incahrge Unit Mehandri Chohan on 24-5- 2007, 30-5-2007, 31-5-2007, 29-6-2007 and 30-6-2007 has committed fraud in the amount received from the Members of PDC and has issued bogus receipts to people and committed fraud of Rs,11,33,000 (Eleven Lac Thirty Three Thousand) have not deposited in the Bank and advanced cheques which have been obtained from Parties have been kept in the Bank as record and Sikiladho Rahimoon has misappropriated the amount of institution and caused losses to Institution though he was responsible person and was doing job of Credit has committed fraud with the Institution, committed forgery and also tampered the record and after committing fraud and misappropriated the amount of Institution has missed. Except the above amount much more amount of PDC has been obtained without receipt and has usurped the amount of Institution. About this fraud, the Members of PDC will produce before the Institution and the proof of Bank Receipts, five cash memos will be produced during enquiry and are present can be perused. The J.M after obtaining permission and letter from CEO appeared at Police Station and lodged report that the accused Sikiladho Rahimoon employee of TDRDP has committed fraud, usurped the amount, prepared bogus documents and after committed forgery of Credit Card has caused losses to Institution. He has prepared false and fabricated record which will be produced with the enquiry."
4. ' The F.I.R. (Exh.10) was lodged by S.H.O., SIP, Ghazi Khan of Police Station Umerkot, who later referred the same to A.S.-I. Imam Ali for investigation. The record shows that in fact the investigation of this case was conducted by A.S.-I. Dur Muhammad Khoso on receiving the relevant papers from S.H.O.
5. He visited the place of occurrence Thar Deep Unit Iodated at Mehandro-Jo-Par and also District Office of Thar Deep Rural Development Programme, Umerkot. Recorded the statement of P. Ws. And prepared the memo.
6. ' During the course of investigation, complainant Wali Muhammad appeared before Investigating Officer and showed him 61 receipts amounting to little more than Rs,79,800 as embezzled by accused Sikiladho, whereas 34 receipts amounting to little more than Rs,32,100 as embezzled by co-accused Mst. Asma. He also showed one tainted receipt amounting to little more than Rs,10,500 issued by one Zafar Ali, Social Officer.
7. ' After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet against accused Sikiladho and Mst. Asma (showing her as absconder). She joined the proceeding after obtaining the bail from the Court of law.
8. ' The trial of both the accused persons commenced after complying the Provisions as laid down under section 65-C, Cr.P.C., charge (Exh.3) framed against the accused persons for offence under sections. 408, 418, 420, 422, 423, P.P.C. Read with sections 468, 474, 475, P.P.C. The accused persons named above pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The Prosecution in all examined following P.Ws. To prove its case.
(i) P.W.1 Wali Muhammad Raj ar (authorized complainant Exh.6, Consultant, Thar Deep Rural Development Programme Mithi (TDRDP).
(ii) P.W.2 Bux Ali, examined at Exh.14, Credit Officer in Micro Credit (TDRDP).
(iii) P.W.3 Maqsood Ahmed, examined at Exh. 15, Financial Risk Management Officer (TDRDP).
(iv) P.W.4 Amolakh Das, examined at Exh.17, Assistant Credit Officer, (TDRDP).
(v) A.S.-I. Dur Muhammad Khoso, examined at Exh.19, Investigating Officer.
9. ' At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, both the accused were examined under section 342 Cr.P.C. Wherein they denied (tie entire prosecution evidence and pleaded their innocence.
10. When they were questioned about the receipts issued by them to the loanees from whom they had recovered the loan amount, they denied the issuance of the receipts shown to them and disowned the signatures on them.
11. ' Accused Sikiladho further disclosed that as he had lodged F.I.R. Of his abduction against the officials of TDRDP, hence they were annoyed and they in order to save themselves involved me in this false case as counterblast.
12. ' Accused Mst. Asma also further disclosed that she was pressurized by (TDRDP) officials to record statement and give evidence against co-accused Sikiladho and on her refusal she has been involved in this case falsely.
13. ' The trial Court after examining the available evidence and record, hearing the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties acquitted both the accused persons under section 265- H(i), Cr.P.C, hence, this Criminal Acquittal Appeal filed by the complainant Wali Muhammad under section 417(2-A), Cr. P. C .
14. ' Heard the learned counsel for the. Complainant/appellant. During the course of his arguments raised following points/ grounds to substantiate his submissions:--
(1) The impugned judgment is not substantial under the law, as it does not fall within the meaning of section 367 Cr.P.C.
(2) The learned trial Judge has not given due legal consideration to the testimony furnished by P.Ws. And documentary evidence as well.
(3) That in spite of the fact that defence has not challenged the signatures of, respondents/accused persons but trial Court has given more importance to that fact.
(4) That the learned trial Court has ignored the material and confidence inspiring evidence furnished by P.Ws. And that defence has utterly failed to shatter their evidence in spite of the lengthy cross-examination.
(5) That the learned trial Judge has not considered the fact that accused Sikiladho purchased 17.5 acres land in the name of his wife with the misappropriated amount.
(6) That the learned Sessions Judge has seriously erred in giving more weight to minor discrepancies over the findings of points for determination formed by Court.
15. ' Learned trial Court has given more importance by discussing the lacunae of the prosecution case, but did not consider the fact that quality of evidence and not quantity of evidence would weigh with the Court which appreciating the evidence.
16. ' On the other hand, learned Advocates for respondents and State counsel supported the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the following case-law in support of their arguments:-
(i) 2010 SCMR 491.
(ii) 2010 SCMR 222.
(iii) PLD 2010 SC 632.
(iv) 2009 SCMR 1232.
(v) 2009 SCMR 985.
(vi) 2010 PCr.LJ 560.
(vii) 2010 MLD Karachi 286.
(viii) 2010 YLR 275.
(ix) 2010 YLR Quetta 1083.
17. ' Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned judgment and available record.
18. ' Accused Sikiladho and Mst. Asma were working as Employees of Thar Deep Rural Development Programme hereinafter called as (TDRDP) on contractual basis. According to the prosecution case, accused Sikiladho received Rs,7,91,865 from 61 loanees who had returned the loan amount to TDRDP and co-accused Mst. Asma had received Rs,3,21,603 from 34 loanees in all Rs,11,23,898 which were to be deposited in TDRDP Account bearing No,15018-8 of Habib Bank Limited, Chhor Branch.
19. ' The incident of this misappropriation surfaced when accused Sikiladho was missing since 7th July to 14th August, 2007. TDRDP Officials made efforts to locate him but failing in their efforts, NC Report No,11 (Exh.7) was lodged at Police Station Umerkot. Since it was a state of confusion, the authorities concerned decided to check the record in order to detect any foulplay. The record showed that both the accused persons have embezzled the above amount through fraudulently manner.
20. ' The point worth consideration is whether accused who were appointed on contractual basis were sufficiently competent to receive the repaid loan amount from loanees, whether they were competent to issue the acknowledgment receipts to the loanees. In case the accused on their appointment were engaged in monetary affairs. Whether any security deposit was taken by TDRDP to secure their money or avoid any mishap. Why their supervisory officials were silent and did not enquire about repayment of loans.
21. ' It is also very strange that sufficiently good number of loanees who repaid their loans but no one from them was examined to prove that they either repaid their loan to accused Sikiladho or co- accused Mst. Asma and they issued receipts and signed the acknowledgment receipts. Police neither recovered the receipts nor made any tangible efforts to obtain the specimen of their signatures and referred the same to the Expert for opinion alongwith the sealed parcel of receipts.
22. The receipts were shown to the Investigating Officer by complainant with whom the receipts were lying. Complainant when examined in the Court provided the receipts.
23. Burden always lies on the prosecution to prove its case and same never shifts. Anyone who alleges must prove the allegations.
24. ' The grounds raised by learned counsel for the complainant are more or less general in nature not specifically mentioned where the fault lies. So far as the comparison of signatures is concerned, learned counsel contended that the defence did not challenge the signatures in spite of lengthy cross-examination. The trial Court has taken into account every possibility and examined the evidence thoroughly. The P.O shall not sit as silent spectator.
25. ' The bulk of case-law produced by learned counsel for respondents/accused is on the principles laid down by Honourable Supreme Court on interference by Appellate Court.
26. It may be observed that interference by this Court in the acquittal judgment passed by the trial Court is unwarranted unless the acquittal is arbitrary, capricious, fanciful and against the record.
27. The appraisal of evidence in an appeal against conviction is done strictly, but in an appeal against acquittal the same rigid method is not to be applied. Interference by this Court may be made only where there is gross misreading of evidence amounting to miscarriage of justice. It is well-settled principle of law that acquittal of an accused cannot be set aside lightly in absence of any strong evidence. Finding of acquittal not sacrosanct, if reasons are of speculative or artificial in nature or based on no evidence or misrepresentation of evidence or the conclusion drawn as to guilt or innocence perverse resulting into miscarriage of justice, this Court can interfere in the finding of acquittal.
28. ' In the case of Haji Amanullah v.Munir Ahmed reported in 2010 SCMR Page 222, wherein it has been held that:-- "(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---S. 417---Appeal against acquittal---Interference by Appellate Court--- Principles--Appellate-Court would not interfere with acquittal of accused merely because on reappraisal of evidence it comes to a conclusion different from that of the Court acquitting the accused, provided both the conclusions are reasonably possible---However, if the conclusion reached by the lower Court was such that no reasonable person would conceivably reach the same and was impossible, then Appellate Court would interfere in such cases on overwhelming proof resulting in Conclusive and irresistible conclusion, and that too with a view to avoid grave miscarriage of justice and for no other purpose--- Important test is that the finding sought to be interfered with should be found wholly artificial, shocking and ridicules after scrutiny."
29. ' In view of the above discussion, I am of the humble view that this Criminal Acquittal Appeal has no merits. The judgment of the trial Court suffers no legal infirmity. Consequently, this Criminal Acquittal Appeal is dismissed.