' SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, J.---By this common judgment, both captioned appeals are taken together, arising from identical orders. Through the captioned Criminal Acquittal Appeals u/s. 417(2), Cr.P.C, the appellant Syed Hassan Raza Naqvi made prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 18.08.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate-X, Hyderabad, in Criminal Case No, 45/2007, Crime No, 56/2007, registered at Police Station A-Section, Latifabad u/ss. 381, 408, 420, PPC, whereby the respondent No, 1/accused was acquitted.
2. Story of the prosecution case in nut shell as narrated by the appellant in this appeal is that respondent/ accused was ex-employee of the appellant/complainant's company M/s. Sirius Constructions Hyderabad and remand in company from 1996 to January 2006 and being employee of the company committed theft of office articles and 10 cheques which fact revealed during audit of the accounts of firm. It is averred that after committing the offence, the respondent/ accused surfaced and disappeared from his duties without any intimation. On 17.03.2007, the appellant has lodged FIR wherein the appellant has stated that respondent/accused Deedar Hussain Shah was working in Sirius Constructions Company Hyderabad as Manager and used to receive the instalments from customers. In the month of January 2006, he had stolen 10 cheques from draws of his table to use them in wrong manner. Since the accused/respondent has committed the theft of 10 cheques, therefore, he is liable to penal consequences. On completion of usual investigation, the accused Deedar Hussain Shah was charge-sheeted. Charge was framed by the Trial Court for an offence punishable u/ss. 381, 408 and 420, PPC and thereafter, the statement of Fazal Hussain Zardari, who was author of the FIR was recorded and thereafter on application u/s. 249-A, Cr.P.C. Filed by the advocate for accused, the accused was acquitted u/s. 249-A, Cr.P.C. Vide order dated 01.12.2006.
3. Argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties are considered and record perused.
4. Mr. Pirbhulal at the outset submitted that there is no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence, as no sufficient iota of evidence is available on the record which shows that on conclusion of the prosecution witnesses, the respondent/accused shall be convicted, mainly on the ground that at the time of alleged theft of ten cheques, the respondent was not in service, which is proved through publication of newspaper, wherein the Sirius Construction Builder and Developers, Hyderabad have informed the general public that the accused Deedar Hussain Shah has left the job in July 2005 and no one shall deal with him. It is next contended that out of ten cheques, three cheques No, 199849, 199850 and 30872573 were given by the complamant to Mian Asghar Ali and same were dishonoured and in lieu of three cheques, he has given a fourth cheque to Mian Asghar Ali and a `Faisla' was held in such regard, copy of which has been annexed alongwith application u/s. 249-A, Cr.P.C. As Annexure Learned counsel further submits that the complainant has given fifth cheque bearing No, 489377 to Mian Asghar Ali and same was also dishonoured and Mian Asghar Ali had filed application 'u/s. 22-A, Cr.P.C. And obtained order and thereafter, the complainant faced trial. Learned counsel submits that in such circumstances, the accused is not involved in commission of theft.
5. Conversely, Mr. Yasir Tahseen Talpur, learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the prosecution did not adduce evidence, therefore, at this pre-mature stage, it cannot be said that there is no probability of conviction of the accused. Learned counsel to support his contention placed reliance on 2009 YLR 1465 and 2013 P.Cr.L.J 1264.
6. Learned A.P.G. Supported the impugned order and contentions made by learned counsel for the respondent.
7. There is no cavil to the proposition that the Trial Courts are having ample powers to exercise their powers in fit and appropriate case u/s. 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. When the charge is groundless or there is no probability of the accused being convicted. It is an admitted position that the mentioned cheques were neither presented nor en-cashed by the accused, therefore, he has not gained monitory relief after committing the alleged theft of cheques. Even the contents of the FIR reveals that cheque numbers have' not been mentioned in the FIR though same must be available on counterfoil. All these facts lead me to the conclusion that there is no occasion to interfere in the impugned order.
8. It is not out of context to make necessary clarification that appeal against acquittal has distinctive feature and approach to deal with appeal against conviction is distinguishable from appeal against acquittal because presumption of double innocence is attached in latter. Case.
Order of acquittal can only be interfered with when it is found on the face of it as capricious, perverse, arbitrary in nature or based on misreading, non-appraisal of evidence or is artificial, arbitrary and led to gross. Miscarriage of justice. Mere disregard of technicalities in a criminal trial without resulting injustice, is not enough for interference, suffice is to say that an order/judgment of acquittal gives rise to strong presumption of innocence rather double presumption of innocence is attached to such an order (1998 P.Cr.LJ 1576, 1985 P.Cr.LJ 2973-1991 SCM R 2220-1993 SCMR 28, 1985 P.Cr.LJ 457, PLD 1966 Supreme Court 424). While examining the facts in the order of acquittal, substantial weight should be given to the findings of the lower Courts whereby accused were exonerated from the commission of crime (1998 SCM R 1281). In 1997 P.Cr.L.J 477, it is held that acquittal would be unquestionable when it could not be said that acquittal was either perverse or that acquittal judgment was improper or incorrect as it is settled that whenever there is doubt about of accused, its benefit must go to him and Court would never come to the rescue of prosecution to fill the lacuna appearing in evidence of prosecution. Case as it would be against established principles of dispensation of criminal justice.
9. The bare reading of the provisions of law makes it abundantly clear that an application u/s. 249- A, Cr.-P.C. Can be brought at any stage, which can either be the very initial stage after taking cognizance or even at later stage. The object of enactment of this section is to save an accused person from malicious prosecution. It need not to re-iterate that accused person can be acquitted at any stage of the case, if the Trial Court considers that charge is groundless or that there is no probability of the accused being convicted of the offence charged with. Such powers of acquittal can be exercised even before examining any witness, if from the material paced on record, he is satisfied that the charge is groundless. The citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant/ complainants are therefore not attracting in the peculiar facts and circumstances of present case.
10. Consequently, the instant Criminal Acquittal Appeals -having no merits for consideration are hereby dismissed.
Acquittal .