2019 PLP 1092 (MLD)

AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.

The appellant being dissatisfied with the acquittal order dated 17-03-2014 passed by the learned V-Assistant Session Judge, Karachi [South] passed in favour of respondent approached this court by filing the instant appeal.

2. At the very outset, learned counsel has to face the question of limitation. The order of acquittal was passed on 17.03.2014, whereas the appeal against the said order was filed on 21-04-2014, whereas it should have been filed within 30 days of the impugned judgment. It is an appeal against acquittal wherein presumption of double innocence is available to the accused. In the appeal against acquittal the appellant has to explain and give the reasons for each and every day for filing the appeal if it is time barred. In appeal against conviction the delay is condoned favourbly. No plausible and sound reasons have been given for filing the appeal with delay and for condonation of delay. The appeal is hopelessly time barred. No plausible and sufficient grounds have been agitated to look into depth and condone the unexplained delay in filing the appeal has been urged.

3. Besides above, it may be not be out of place to mention here that an appeal against acquittal has distinctive features and approach to deal with the appeal against conviction is distinguishable from the appeal against the acquittal because presumption of double innocence is attached in the later case. Order of acquittal can only be interfered with, if it is found on its face to be capricious, perverse, arbitrary in nature or based on misreading, non-appraisal of evidence or is artificial, arbitrary and lead 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. 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 as held by the Apex Court in the case of Muhammad Ijaz v. Fahim Afzal (1998 SCMR 1281) and Jehangir v. Amin Ullah and others (2010 SCMR 491). It is settled principle of law as held in the plethora of case laws 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 guilt of accused, its benefit must go to him and Court would never come to the rescue of prosecution to fill-up the lacuna appearing in evidence of prosecution case as it would be against established principles of dispensation of criminal justice.

4. It appears that perhaps the appellant is interested to drag the respondent in this case. Even otherwise, perusal of impugned judgment reveals that after thoroughly examining material, the trial Court is its elaborate, well-reasoned order arrived at the conclusion that prosecution remained unsuccessful to prove the case against respondent and acquitted the respondent. There is hardly any improbability or infirmity in the impugned order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court, which being based on sound reasons does not warrant any, interference by this Court and is accordingly maintained. I therefore, dismiss this Criminal Acquittal Appeal being time barred as well as having no merits for consideration. These are the reasons of short order dated 26-11-2018. SA/S-93/Sindh Appeal dismissed.