1991 P Cr (PLP)

IMAM ALI G. KAZI, J.

This appeal under section 417(1), Cr. P. C. has been filed by the Standing Counsel, Government of Pakistan (Mr. Hussain Adil Khatri) against judgment passed on 21-12-1989 by the Sessions Judge and F.E.R. Tribunal, Karachi (South) whereby respondent Inamur Rehman Alvi was acquitted. According to the facts of the prosecution respondent Inamur Rehman Alvi had held foreign exchange to the tune of h 2,13,749/03 in United Kingdom at the time of Foreign Exchange Repatriation Regulation, 1972 (MLR-104 of 1972) was promulgated. Instead of repatriating the entire amount he merely repatriated an amount of h 1,70,000 under the said Regulation and thereby rendered himself liable for offence punishable under its paragraph five read with the provision of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. Respondent after usual investigation of the case by the Special Police Establishment, State Bank of Pakistan, Karachi was sent up for trial in the said Court. After completing the trial of the respondent the F.E.R. Tribunal recorded his acquittal in the case. It is against this judgment that the present appeal under section 417(1), Criminal Procedure Code has been filed. The memo. of appeal in this case has been signed by the Standing Counsel, Government of Pakistan as applicant in the appeal and it has been countersigned by Mr. K.M. Nadeem, Assistant Advocate-General, Sindh. When the Criminal Acquital Appeal came up for the summary hearing on 10-7-1990 Mr. K.M. Madeem, Assistant Advocate General, Sindh appeared for the applicant/ appellant. He was confronted with the provision of section 417(1), Cr.P.C. reproduced hereunder: "

417. Appeal in case of acquittal.-- (1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (4), the Provincial Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court." He was asked to explain about the maintainability of the appeal as' according to the section the Provincial Government can only give direction to the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court. He candidly stated that the present appeal has not been filed by the Provincial,, Government or under its directions by the Public Prosecutor as provided thereby. There can be no dispute about the proposition that the appeal against the order of acquittal in a State case, even after the section,, was amended by Law Reforms Ordinance can only be riled under the directions of the Provincial Government by the Public Prosecutor. The right to rile appeal against the acquittal has been restricted by the specific provision in the statute with the object of preventing filing of such appeals against the acquittal on frivolous grounds due to personal vindictiveness car as a matter of harassment by private persons. The Provincial Government only can, therefore, rile an appeal against an acquittal. The Provincial Government where it considers that acquittal has resulted in miscarriage of justice will alone authorise the Public in such appeal. In the present case neither the Provincial Prosecutor to file had accorded sanction to rile the appeal nor authorised the Public Prosecutor to rile it. We are therefore, of the view that present appeal is not competent. We are fortified by our above views by the cases reported in 1984 P Cr. LJ 544; P L D 1969 SC 398 and A I R 1944 Nag.

136. For the reasons stated above we had dismissed the appeal by our short order passed on 10-7-1990. N.H.Q./S-712/K ???????? Appeal dismissed.