ABDULLAH BALOCH, J.---This judgment disposes of Criminal Appeal No.01 of 2022 filed by the appellant (convict) Shabir Ali son of Muhammad Ali, against the judgment dated 15th March 2022 ("the impugned judgment") passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-X Quetta ("the trial Court"), whereby the appellant was convicted under section 489-B, P.P.C. and sentenced to suffer 3-years R.I., with fine of Rs.20,000/- or in default thereof to further suffer six(06) months S.I., with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Facts of the case are that on 24th August 2021, the complainant Abdul Wakil son of Pai Din lodged FIR No.105 of 2021, at Police Station Saddar Quetta, under section 489-B, P.P.C., with the averments that on the said date at about 04.30 p.m. the appellant came to the shop of complainant, bought a bottle of Dew cold drink and handed over a currency note bearing No.UX6214106 of Rs.1000/- to the complainant, which was checked by him and found the same as fake/ counterfeit, hence the accused was apprehended and was handed over to the concerned police patrolling officials.
3. After registration of FIR, the appellant was arrested, investigated and was challaned in the trial Court, which indicated the charge to appellant, who denied the same, thus the prosecution in order to establish the charge has produced the evidence of four (04) witnesses, whereafter the appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. However, neither he recorded his statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. nor produced any witness in his defence. On conclusion of trial and after hearing argument, the appellant was found guilty of the charge and was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above in para No. 1. Whereafter, instant appeal has been filed.
4. Heard the learned counsel and perused the available record. Perusal of record reveals that it is a case of no evidence at all and the learned trial Court while delivering the impugned judgement has reached to a conclusion, which is perverse and contrary material available on record. The contents of FIR shows that no recovery proceedings were carried out at the spot rather the appellant was taken to Police Station Kharot Abad and thereafter to Police Station Saddar, where his personal search was conducted, which resulted into recovery of remaining fake/counterfeit currency notes.
There is no explanation that as to why the recovery proceedings were not carried out at the spot and as to why his personal search was not conducted at the spot, which otherwise in such like case is necessary. Such infirmities creates serious doubts in the case of prosecution.
5. The complainant of case namely Abdul Wakil appeared in the Court as PW-1, who contradicted the contents of his fard-e-bayan Ex.P/1-A on certain counts. PW-1 in his cross-examination stated that the police, conducted the personal search of appellant, which resulted into recovery of further Rs.16000/- fake/counterfeit currency notes. The PW-1 has failed to mention the denomination of each currency note. PW-2 Mumtaz Ali, ASI, stated that on the day of occurrence he was present in the Investigation Room, wherein the I.O. Haroon, ASI, conducted the personal search of appellant and recovery of 15-Nos fake/counterfeit of Rs. 1000/-denomination were effected, while according to PW-1 the appellant was handed over to the police mobile, which was patrolling nearby the place of occurrence. PW-2 produced the recovery memo. Ex.P/2-A, which reflects that 15 Notes of Rs.
1000/- each were taken into possession, but neither the numbers of each note is mentioned in the recovery memo. nor any signs were made on the currency notes, while the report is showing the number of each notes. Even otherwise, the same was not exhibited by B the prosecution. Such glaring infirmities create doubts in the case of prosecution.
6. PW-3 Farhan contradicted the statement of PW-1 and stated on the day of occurrence at about 2.30 or 3.00 p.m. the complainant brought the appellant to Police Station, handed over one number fake/counterfeit currency note to police, which was taken into possession and sealed in parcel No. 1, while PW-1 had mentioned the time of occurrence at about 4.30 p.m. Though the said parcel was exhibited through PW-3 as Ex.P/3-A, but admittedly the said parcel did not contain the signatures of this witness. PW-3 also contradicted the statement of PW-2, who had stated that in the police station the personal search of appellant was resulted into recovery of 16-Nos currency note. PW-4 Haroon Rasheed, ASI, is the Investigating Officer of the case, who counted the steps taken by him during the course of investigation. This witness has also not produced the details/list of counterfeit currency notes that were recovered from the possession of appellant. PW-4 admitted that no parcel was produced in the Court. He also admitted that the statement of no private witness was recorded. This witness further admitted that no inquiry in this case was carried out.
7. The reappraisal of entire evidence produced by the prosecution appears to be untrustworthy.
The I.O. conducted a poor investigation. Though the prosecution has alleged that besides the note in question that was handed over to police by the complainant, the recovery of remaining 16-Nos currency notes were recovered from the possession of appellant, but the entire prosecution case is silent with regard to details, numbers and denominations thereof. Even it is not confirmed that whether 15 or 16-Nos of counterfeit currency notes were recovered from the possession of appellant. The complainant states that after recovery of counterfeit currency note, the appellant was entrusted to police patrolling party at the spot, while the remaining PWs contradicted his statement and stated that PW-1 himself produced the appellant in police station.
8. Admittedly, the case of prosecution is doubtful, but unjustifiably the benefit of such doubts was not extended in favour or the appellant. Needless to emphasize that accused was entitled to be extended benefits of doubt as a matter of right. Even an accused cannot' be deprived of benefit of doubt, merely because there is only one circumstance, which creates doubts in the prosecution story, whereas in the case in hand there are series of doubts. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Tariq Pervaiz v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "The concept of benefit of doubt to an accused is deep-rooted in our country. For giving him benefit of doubt it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt if there is a circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused then accused will be entitled to the benefit not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right."
For the reasons discussed hereinabove, the appeal is accepted, the impugned judgment dated 15th March 2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-X Quetta is set aside and while extending the benefit of doubts, the appellants Shabir Ali son of Muhammad Ali, is acquitted of the charge. The appellant being in custody, shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Above are the reasons of my short order dated 1st April, 2022.