MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The learned counsel for the complainant assailed the order passed by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption Gilgit dated 30.06.2016, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent by accepting a petition filed under section 265-K, Cr.P.C.
2. The learned counsel submitted that he was representing the complainant throughout trial but on the date of hearing of arguments on the application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C., he was in Skardu and only prosecutor FIA was present and was heard. Per learned counsel the prejudice has been caused to the complainant as his case was not presented properly before the trial Court.
3. On the other hand the learned counsel for respondent submits that after examination of two star witnesses of the case the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that further continuation of trial would be a futile exercise and rightly acquitted the accused. The learned counsel further stated that two remaining witnesses if examined, the fate of the case will be the same and the judgment of acquittal be maintained.
4. I heard the learned counsel and perused the record of the case. As conceded by the learned counsel for the complainant that while proceeding to Skardu he has not submitted any written application for adjournment of the case nor the same is mentioned in the order sheet of trial Court.
Hearing of counsel for the complainant is not a mandatory requirement, when the learned legal advisor FIA was present and was given opportunity of hearing. The contention of learned counsel that the trial Court passed the impugned order without affording an opportunity of hearing does not hold the field as discussed above and is repelled. When no application was presented before the trial Court for adjournment on behalf of complainant, the trial Court was not under legal or moral compulsion to adjourn the case, when a notice to legal advisor FIA and learned counsel for complainant was issued and the date of hearing was already in the knowledge of legal advisor and the complainant counsel. However, there is another aspect of the case that a widow has been defrauded in the instant case and she after death of her husband is running from pillar to post for justice. The learned trial Judge disposed of the case in a hasty manner, holding that the statements of remaining two PWs, even if recorded will not prove the case. This finding of the learned trial Court is not correct as a criminal case could be proved through the statement of a single reliable witness and there is no concept to bury a case at the infancy stage. There are certain documents, which have been collected by the I.O. During investigation of the case and genuineness/otherwise is yet to be scrutinized by the Court. The statements of remaining prosecution witnesses as well as of I.O. Are necessary for just and fair disposal of the case.
5. In view of above the appeal filed by the State (FIA) is allowed and the case is remanded back to the trial Court for disposal on merits. Since only three PWs are to be examined, the trial Court will summon the PWs and will provide level playing field to both the parties to plead their case and the learned special Judge will decide the case according to its own merits without being influenced by any observation made in this order/judgment.
6. The accused/respondent was in jail, when he was acquitted by the trial Court. He remained in jail for over 1 year. I deem it fit and proper in the interest of justice to allow bail to the accused/respondent subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lac only) with two local solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. The respondent is directed to appear before the learned Special Judge Ant-Corruption Gilgit for doing the needful. Parties will appear before the trial Court on 04.10.2016 for further proceedings.