2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(iv) 1990 PLC (C.S.) pages 397 relevant page 798. (v)1990 PLC (C.S.) pages 398. (vi) 1996 PLC (C.S.)

247. With regard to the limitation he submitted that there is no limitation against a void/illegal order. In view of his submissions he requested that the impugned original/final appellate orders may be set aside with all past benefits. Mr. Zaidi, A.A.‑G. argued that the appellant was dismissed on 10‑11‑1992 and that order was served upon the appellant on 12‑10‑1992, as per paras. 11 and 13 of his appeal to the D.I.‑G. concerned which was delayed by 5 months. He also pointed out that the appellant had filed `review' before the D.I.G., whereas it should have been filed before L‑G. Police, he submitted also that huge quantity of arms ammunition were recovered from the appellant by the L.E.A. and as such, the appellant did not deserve any mercy the appeal may be dismissed. The Advocate for the appellant exercising his right to reply submitted that as per judgment of the Divisional Bench of the Hon'ble High Court, last para. of its judgment. "From the above discussion, we are of the view that neither the evidence of recovery brought before this Court nor the confession can be the basis of conviction. Accordingly, we have no hesitation, in arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the appellant, beyond any reasonable doubt. In these circumstances, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment, conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any case." We have gone through the arguments of either side, citation quoted and perused the record carefully. The fact remain that civil and criminal liabilities are two different things. In a case, which involves, the criminal and civil liabilities, the acquittal in the criminal case does not automatically absolve the civil liability. Undoubtedly, the service matters are civil proceedings. According to the F.I.R. No. 158 of 1992, Police Station Tandojam, the following arms/ammunitions were recovered at the pointation of the appellant: (i) One (1) Rocket Launcher Gun. (ii) One (1) G‑3 Rifle. (iii) One (1) Handgrenade. (iv) Two (2) Golas of Launcher. (v) Ninety four (94) bullets of G‑3 Rifle. However, since there were certain contradiction/verification in the testimony of P.Ws. and the case property was not marked properly/produced in Court the Divisional Bench of Hon'ble High Court acquitted the appellant, giving him benefit of doubt/discarded his confession for which reasonable time' before hand was not given, in its opinion. Nevertheless, no enmity was alleged against the personnel of L.E.A. nor any ulterior motive of its personnel/police team that accompanied, it was advanced at any stage. It is rather preposterous that police/L.E.A. in the said circumstances would fabricate a false case resulting in huge/costly recovery of the abovesaid arms and ammunitions from their own pocket specially when the accused was socio‑economically member of the 4th State/ordinary person. The only other presumption could be that the appellant, as alleged in F.I.R., had close links with the ill‑famed A.Z.O. and knew that the abovesaid arms and ammunitions belonging to its members were hidden at the specific place. The learned Divisional Bench of Sindh High Court, gave the benefit of doubt to the appellant because of certain technical/procedural flaws and rightly acquitted him, because in criminal law, the benefit of doubt invariably goes to the accused. However, as already said this acquittal in a criminal case due to technical flaws in prosecution, does not absolve him of his civil/service liability. Police is a uniform force, and the main law enforcing agency, and therefore, its members must have immaculate/record free from any blemish, credentials, without any political affiliations. Appellant has also failed to prove any motive of L.E.A.S./even previous personal enmity or grudge against any of its personnel. Therefore, we do not find sufficient justification to set aside the impugned order. However, since the appellant at the time of his dismissal, had seven years of service to his credit, we convert it to 'removal from service' from the same date, to enable him to draw his service dues, if any like G.P. Fund etc. There are no orders as to the costs. Announced in open Court this 19th day of February, 1999 at Karachi. H.B.T./27/K(S. Trib) Appeal dismissed.