2026 PLP 594 (YLR)

Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, J.

Accused/appellants Syed Waqar Abbas Naqvi (in Crl. Appeal No.264 of 2024), Liaquat Ali (in Crl. Appeal No.296 of 2024) along with co-accused/ respondents Nos.01 to 05, namely, Syed Nazrana Shah, Shakil Ahmad, Shafique Awan, Muhammad Yousaf and Muhammad Ashfaq (in Crl. Appeal No.388 of 2024) faced trial before learned Special Judge Central, Rawalpindi, in case FIR bearing No.110 dated 05.11.2013 registered under sections 109/409/420/468/471-P.P.C., read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 at Police Station FIA/ACC, Rawalpindi and on conclusion of trial, vide impugned judgment dated 19.03.2024, co-accused/respondents No.01 to 05, namely, Syed Nazrana Shah, Shakil Ahmad, Shafique Awan, Muhammad Yousaf and Muhammad Ashfaq (in Crl. Appeal No.388 of 2024) stood acquitted of the charges whereas the present accused/appellants Syed Waqar Abbas Naqvi (in Crl. Appeal No.264 of 2024) and Liaquat Ali (in Crl. Appeal No.296 of 2024) were convicted and sentenced under section 409-P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as under:- "Under section 409 P.P.C. to undergo 07 (seven) years each Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.60,00,000/- (sixty lakh) each and in default of payment of fine they shall further undergo 01 (one) year Simple Imprisonment each" "Under section 5(2) 1947 PCA to undergo 07 (seven) years each Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 60,00,000/- (sixty lakh) each and in default of payment of fine they shall further undergo 01 (one) year Simple Imprisonment each" Benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. was extended to the convicts/ appellants.

2. Being aggrieved by their above convictions and sentences, the accused/appellant Syed Waqar Abbas Naqvi has filed Crl. Appeal No.264 of 2024 whereas accused/appellant Liaquat Ali has filed Crl. Appeal No.296 of 2024, whereas, the complainant has preferred Criminal Appeal No.388 of 2024 against acquittal of co-accused/respondents Nos.01 to 05, namely, Syed Nazrana Shah, Shakil Ahmad, Shafique Awan, Muhammad Yousaf and Muhammad Ashfaq. All three matters are being decided through this single judgment.

3. An application Ex.PA without date and time was moved by Rahat Ali Khan Supervisor Mess, Air Weapon Complex (AWC) with the narration that Liaqat Ali accused/appellant was working as Superintendent in AWC when he was retired in year 2012 and again taken on contract service for one year. It was learnt through different complaints that Liaqat Ali accused/appellant was committing embezzlement of money through forged fuel bills because he used to deal with vehicles of the department, and offence was being committed since 1998. Earlier in year 2010, a complaint was made by Sultan Driver that he used to prepare forged bills of POL (Petrol, Oil, Lubricant) charges, and then in year 2013 said Liaqat accused/appellant along with Shakeel, dispatch rider and Nazrana Shah, driver was found involved in embezzlement and falsification of accounts of the department as per departmental inquiry; therefore, he left the job. He used to prepare forged bill vouchers, make forged signature of his senior officers and has caused a total loss of Rs. 232, 85, 186/- Upon such application above FIR was registered on 11.06.2013. Later during investigation complainant made supplementary statement that four other accused namely Syed Waqar Abass Naqvi Director MT/ the appellant, Yousaf Khan G.M. MT, Shafiq Awan, G.M. Finance and Ashfaq Accountant Finance of AWC were also found involved during inquiry conducted by Masood Ilyas Director Electronics, (head of inquiry committee) with Nuaman Quereshi and Faraz Ahmad Group captain (members).

4. In order to prove the allegation against the above accused persons, prosecution produced 15 witnesses and documentary evidence Ex.PB/1-21 relating to details of bank account of Liaqat Ali, appellant reportedly opened in year 2014; Ex. P1 Diary of action relating to departmental inquiry conducted by a board of inquiry (BOI); Ex. P2, particulars of witnesses 20 in number that does include all the accused of this case; Ex. P3/A-B-C, list of exhibits; Ex.P4, findings of inquiry; Ex. P5, recommendations in inquiry; Ex.P6/1-6 signature verification Report by Director Technical FIA; Ex.P7, Financial year wise fuel Expenses Summary; Nine folders of forged vouchers Ex. PW-7/A to Ex. PW-7/I; Forged bills Ex. PW-14/A and Ex. PW-14/B/1-274; Forged bills Ex. PW-15/A-G.

5. After conclusion of trial, all other accused stood acquitted whereas Syed Waqar Abass Naqvi and Liaqat Ali were convicted and sentenced as cited above.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant Syed Waqar Abass Naqvi states that the accused/appellant being supervisory officer was not found involved in commission of offence even during departmental inquiry as conceded by PW-8 and PW-9 [members of BOI (Board of Inquiry)] and during trial prosecution has also failed to substantiate his connivance or association with other accused. Whereas learned counsel for Liaqat accused appellant states that neither certified copies of record as required under Article 87 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 was produced in evidence nor the Court has summoned original record of documents produced in support of prosecution's case and it has mainly relied on inquiry report wherein standard of proof is different and lower to one required to prove a criminal charge, which is 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'.

7. Heard. Record perused.

8. It is an admitted fact that period of embezzlement in budget of POL charges was calculated as of year 1998 to year 2013, but despite the fact PW-7 conceded conducting of annual audit in the office, no such audit report of any period was tendered in evidence so as to show fixation of liability on any official as per audit paras. It is also an admitted position that no other person was indicted in this case who could have remained posted on the position in between period from year 1998 to 2013 except Liaqat Ali, accused/appellant. The period of posting of Syed Waqar Abass Naqvi appellant was also less than a year when such FIR was got lodged. No application or written complaint was tendered in evidence to show that information was ever received in the department from any corner for such embezzlement.

9. Misconduct and criminal misconduct have their different regimes for initiation of proceedings and culmination into penalty or punishment. Misconduct is regulated under the service rules and proceedings are initiated through departmental inquiry whereas criminal misconduct being an offence is initiated through registration of FIR or filing of a complaint. In the former, after departmental inquiry, either accused/employee is exonerated or he is imposed upon any of the penalties enumerated in such service rules whereas on the charge of criminal misconduct either accused is acquitted or he is punished with imprisonment or fine as prescribed by law. In the former, though provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 are applicable but standard of proof is different to one required to prove the criminal misconduct before the Court, therefore, any official derelictions cannot always be termed as commission of criminal misconduct but if it fulfills the ingredients of offence then law requires that it should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is true that any employee who is held responsible in a departmental inquiry for any misconduct or inefficiency cannot be legally imported or conceded as an accused for committing criminal misconduct in a criminal trial.

10. In the present case, the prosecution has rested its case entirely on the basis of departmental inquiry. No witnesses appeared to state how the embezzlement in the budget of POL charges was committed by the accused/appellants nor chain of evidence was produced to carpet the facts by presenting a panoramic view of embezzlement. Mere alleging that since year 1998 to 2013, head of accounts (POL charges) was being robbed/embezzled by the officers posted in such period, is not sufficient rather it must have been shown to the Court through any official documents that such embezzlement was tracked and liability was fixed but to the surprise of this Court, no audit report of such period was brought on record despite the fact some of the witnesses conceded during trial that a regular audit of the department is conducted. However, if no audit report was available, then the witnesses must have stated fact by fact the documents with identification and date that it was a forged document and then in support of such oral assertions, documents should have been proved to show the facts in chain as required by Article 139 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 but in this case, a photocopy of inquiry report and receipts of POL charges in volumes and that too as photocopies, not certified by the concerned officials were produced before the Court which does not fulfill the requirement of documentary evidence in this case. There is a difference between attested copies of documents and certified copies of documents. For a person who has seen an original document while comparing it with the photocopies can well within the competency to attest them as true whereas the person who holds the custody of documents in his office, when attests such documents, they are labelled as certified documents and the law requires production of certified copies of public documents to make it an admissible evidence. Some of the witnesses appeared in the dock claimed that they have attested the documents on the direction of finance department but conceded that they are not officers of same department or custodian of such record and even during cross-examination, conceded that they did not know the nature of documents, therefore, prosecution had no case on the documentary side before the Court.

11. Photocopy of a report of FIA Forensic Lab was also brought on the record but its link with the documents was not spoken before the Court. So much so, accused/appellants were not brought before the Magistrate for getting their specimen signatures nor any document was produced before the Court as carrying genuine signatures of the accused/appellants for their comparison with the acclaimed forged signatures over the bills. Court under Article 84 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 has also not directed to bring on record the original documents/bills so as to make a comparison of such signatures nor expert of FIA Lab was summoned to clarify that which of the documents/bills were sent to them for analysis.

12. Even otherwise, neither any driver was associated into the investigation who could have deposed that on their behalf any forged bills have been submitted by accused persons or they prepared any forged receipt. Similarly, record of receipts has not been got verified from the respective patrol stations which is another illegality, breaking the chain of evidence for a proof of commission of offence.

13. Overall expression of prosecution case for establishing the forgery in POL charges for the purpose of committing embezzlement was so aristocratic/bureaucratic as usually adopted during the departmental inquiry but trial of an offence stands altogether on different legal premise which requires proving of charge through the production of evidence in accordance with the provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and no alternate or alien hypothesis can be given space to establish the charge against the accused/appellants.

14. What has been enumerated above can well be established from the statements of following witnesses which are bit by bit reproduced as under: PW-1 Rahat Ali Khan Junior Executive Officer (Legal) AWC, Wah Cantt. was the complainant but does not have direct knowledge about commission of alleged offence nor he stated that on the direction of such and such officer he is reporting the matter to the police. His evidence was a hearsay but it did not come on the record that who had disclosed before him about commission of offence by the appellants and others. Matter was reported to the police on 11.06.2013 but interestingly before reporting the crime, there was no departmental inquiry against the appellants which was initiated on 27.09.2013 as per Ex. P

1. The hasty mode of initiating criminal action clearly speaks mala fide that by all means Department (AWC) was in a hurry to bulldoze the appellant and others without first determining their role or participation in commission of offence probably to conceal something. Hats off to the policemen who had also registered the FIR without asking for any authority letter of head of Department despite the fact matter pertains to departmental process, may be privileged in nature, access whereof could not have been given without departmental permission. Matter did not end here rather complainant was steering the process bit by bit as the departmental inquiry developed. Nomination of further accused was also a sequel of unauthorized intervention into the investigation. It is true that an informer need not be an aggrieved person yet he must justify his intention to report the matter to the police directly. Thus, from the very inception, prosecution case was carrying a fatality indicator to book and secure conviction of the accused/appellants and others at every cost in this case. During cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he was directed orally by Director Admn Khanzada Aziz to become complainant of this case, but said Khanzada did enter into the dock to verify such fact. The ignorance of this witness to departmental processes was visible when during cross-examination he replied as under; "A do not know AWC is subsidiary of PAF. I do not know AWC deals in defence production. I cannot tell exact organizational structure of AWC, I cannot tell who head the MT. I cannot tell about the functioning procedure of the Transport department. I do not know that POL (Petrol Oil Lubricant) is dealt with the MT section. I do not know about the fueling process of the official vehicles. I do not know if a requisition is made for obtaining the fuel. I cannot tell that requisition is compromised (sic) of four copies. I do not know if the requisitioning department, Transport section and Accounts section are well aware of the issuance of POL demand. I do not know if the arrangement of POL are within the AWC or the vehicles are filled from the penal of fuel sections." And further; "I do not know about actual role of accused persons present in the court in this case of misappropriation. I do not know about issuance of show cause notice to Shakeel accused as a legal requirement in a departmental inquiry. I do not know about issuance of cross cheque by the finance department. I do not know that any bill submitted by any department for advance is to be in the name of officer, whose name cross cheque is issued, either it relates to temporary advance or imprest advance. I have not examined the documents before the IO during the course of investigation." During cross-examination he further conceded that he does not know as to whether Sultan Shah driver is PW in this case or not. He was also not aware of any fact with respect to obtaining of any finger print expert report or taking into possession of stamp papers purported to be prepared by Liaqat accused/appellant, but conceded that he did not know that he handed over such forged stamp papers to the IO. He conceded that FIR was registered on 19.01.2013 where supplementary statement was made by him on 23.02.2015. He also conceded that he did not go through the inquiry conducted against the accused persons. He even did not know how the loss was assessed in this case but stated that according to his knowledge loss was to the tune of Rs. 2, 32,00000/- This witness was carrying completely hearsay evidence, thus was not helpful in any manner to support the prosecution narrative.

15. PW-2 Zahid Mahmood General Manager Finance Air Weapon Complex (AWC) Wah Cantt., entered appearance in the dock stated nothing about the scam or embezzlement or criminal liability of any of the accused; simply stated that he had attested Folder No. 9 containing pages 1 to

233. Neither identified folder No. 9 with any exhibit mark nor told what sort of those papers he had attested. He did not state that he had handed over such papers in folder No. 9 to investigating officer nor brought the original papers with him. He also conceded that his statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. was not recorded by the IO. Further conceded that neither he is head of Finance Department nor record keeper. Therefore, his testimony was of no worth for the prosecution.

16. PW-3: Mst. Saima Raheem Technical Officer Information Technology Department (IT) Finance, Air Weapon Complex (AWC) Wah Cantt put her appearance in the dock with the statement that she only attested the documents in Folder Nos. 3, 4, 7 and

12. She stated nothing about Scam or embezzlement nor any role of accused persons on the basis of any documents attested by him nor nature of documents were stated or identified them with any exhibit mark. She conceded during cross-examination that the documents attested by her are not relevant to her department. Interestingly, she was aware of the fact that only head of department or authorized officer can attest such documents. She conceded that neither she is a custodian of the record nor she is head of the department of concerned documents. She conceded that investigating officer has not recorded her statement and it was the first time she was deposing before the Court. Again, the testimony of this witness does not add quality to prosecution case.

17. PW-4 Muhammad Waseem Manager Finance, Air Weapon Complex (AWC) Wah Cantt, stated he attested Folder Nos. 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 16, 17 and 18, though did not identify them with any exhibit mark yet stated that they contain bogus/fake bills of MT Section without specifying the date or nature of bills or its link with the accused persons in terms of their handwriting, signatures or tampering of any sort like cutting of digits or figures of amount over it or unauthorized withdrawal of amount without allocation of budget. In short, he did not state how such bills were bogus or fake. He was mere a signature machine without knowing the nature of documents when says that I cannot tell the exact period relating to cited documents. He further stated that only original text was shown to him and he certified it. He was not aware of the fact as to when audit of such documents was conducted in the department though conceded that in his department quarterly, half yearly and yearly audit is conducted. He admitted that audit teams of NESCOM also conducted the audit. He conceded that audit paras are normally prepared and remined with audit department. He also admitted that claim of POL bills is paid through cross cheque and it could only be withdrawn by that person or under authority letter of that person. The fatal response by him was that all the bills in Folder Nos. 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 16, 17 and 18 are only photocopies and not the original. Thus, neither original bills were procured through any other source if they had been submitted to Accounts office nor claimed that he is head of department, and also not a record keeper.

18. PW-5 Muhammad Faisal Azeem Assistant Manager Finance, Air Weapon Complex (AWC) Wah Cantt., he was also a witness to attestation of folder Nos. 14 and

15. In his examination in chief he did not state anything about nature of folders or their identification with any exhibit Mark. He also did not state about the criminal liability of the accused persons with their role or work, nor had shown link of such documents with the accused persons. During cross-examination he conceded that attested copies contain POL bill but stated that he had no idea if the bills attested by him belong to different cities as well as provinces. He was also simply an attester without any knowing the processes of MT department, advance payments to drivers and withdrawal of imprest amount in the name of GM for adjustment.

19. PW-6 Furqan Tariq Chohan Assistant Manager Askari Bank Limited Regional Operational office AWT Plaza Rawalpindi produced account details of Liaqat Ali accused/appellant. Prosecution had not used this witness to show that amounts are being deposited by Liaqat Ali accused/appellant or suspicious transaction were being made to conceal the embezzlement.

20. PW-7 Naeem-ul-Wahab Superintendent Mechanical Transport Air Weapon Complex (AWC) Wah Cantt, he was posted in fuel section and produced 9 folders Ex. PB/A to Ex. PI about bogus bills/vouchers to Ghulam Rasool Investigating officer. He did not state the nature of bogus bills nor gave description of any of the bills to show that on such and such date bill submitted by certain driver was found bogus on inquiry due to tampered signatures, overpayment or of ghost employee etc. He even did not join the investigation to help the investigating agency to help detect the scam in order to crack the embezzlement. From the tone and tenor of this important witness, it appears that department was not interested to conduct a fair prosecution in this case rather to book the accused persons of their choice and get them convicted at all cost. A fatal question asked by the defence about existence and availability of fuel registers in the office from year 1998 to 2013, was responded by him with the expression that the registers till 2008 has been burnt. He stated that destruction certificate would be in the office. He also conceded that during audit of his department since 1998 to 2013, no bogus bill was ever found or pointed out. He admitted that he did not summon any owner of petrol station, and Finance Department had never returned any bill while placing it under objection as bogus.

21. PW-8 Muhammad Nauman Quereshi, Director Air Weapon Complex Wah Cant. Rawalpindi was the member of Inquiry committee who stated that during inquiry the responsibility was put on the shoulder of three persons namely Liaqat Ali, Nazrana Shah and Shakeel, but he did not tender the copy of inquiry report in support of prosecution case that on the basis of such and such material or evidence, a certain type of embezzlement was tracked and network of people involved therein was cracked. A mere expression, that such and such were found involved in the embezzlement of funds/government money, without specifying the date, time, mode, amount of money and the channel of passing money cannot attain the status of an evidence. During cross-examination he conceded as under; "It is correct that during inquiry it was found that all the bills were presented to billing section of Finance Department, all the requirement for payment were fulfilled, the payment were issued to cross cheques used to be issued in the name of General Manager". He further admitted during cross-examination as under; "It is correct that duration of alleged embezzlement is spread over a span of 15 years i.e. from 1998 to 2013. It is correct that the people used to be transferred from one place to another as per departmental routine. It is correct that there was no record available to the inquiry committee from year 1998 to 2006". He further conceded that we have not joined into inquiry any single individual or owner of petrol pump so as to ascertain the authenticity of bills which were encashed through the mode of re-imbursement. He finally conceded that; "It is correct that according to our inquiry, it was concluded that accused persons namely Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Waqar Abbas Naqvi and Muhammad Shafique were not connected with the embezzlement".

22. PW-9: Faraz Ahmad Project Director Air Weapon Complex Wah Cantt. Rawalpindi was also one of the members of inquiry committee who deposed that Liaqat Ali. The then Mechanical Transport Supervisor was responsible for fuel embezzlement along with Nazrana Shah Driver as well as Shakeel Despatch Rider. Total fraud committed was amounting to 23.2 million approximately, but did not state the detail of such embezzlement with respect to particular date, time or head of account used in commission of such offence. He also did not tender inquiry report in evidence. During cross-examination he conceded the process for submission of fuel bill and its mode of payments as under; According to our SOP the incharge of Convey is responsible to make payment of re-filling fuels when the vehicle is travelling in far flung areas. It is correct that upon the return of driver, the drive produces the receipts of fuel to his MT Supervisor. It is correct that in case of temporary advance/receipt, driver of a vehicle produced the attested receipt to his supervisor, after getting the signatures of his Supervisory officer, Manager MT/Director, MT, then, a cross cheque would be issued in the name of General Manager MT. I have gone through the report prepared by the FIA about signatures of Muhammad Yousaf GM and Waqar Naqvi, wherein it was mentioned that the signature of Yousaf were into 98% fake and signatures of Waqar Naqvi were 90% genuine. For outcome of inquiry, he deposed as under; We did not find any piece of evidence during inquiry against the accused persons namely Major Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Muhammad Shafique and Waqar Abbas Naqvi. No abetment was found during our inquiry of the above named accused or any negligence regarding the embezzlement. For Shakeel acquitted accused, he deposed as under; It is correct that I had mentioned in my inquiry report that Shakeel accused was appointed as Section Incharge Accounts of MT department. Throughout the inquiry, no such document brought on record wherefrom it might be found that Shakeel accused has ever applied for Temporary Advance and got issued any cheque in his name or withdrawn any amount for his name. It is correct that computer generates an ID for temporary advance issued on user ID Number for the purpose of withdrawal of amount.

23. PW-13 Muhammad Azmat Khan Assistant Director CTW FIA Islamabad. He deposed that case was initially registered with local police but Incharge FIA/Anti-corruption Circle directed him to register FIR EX.PW-13/2. He also investigated the case but complainant told him that inquiry is yet in progress, therefore, he submitted interim report under section 173 of Cr.P.C. before the Court "No incriminating material was provided by the department against the accused Shakeel Ahmed till the investigation remained with me." It is correct that I had mentioned in my inquiry report that Shakeel accused was appointed as Section Incharge Accounts of MT department. Throughout the inquiry, no such document brought on record wherefrom it might be found that Shakeel accused has ever applied for Temporary Advance and got issued any cheque in his name or withdrawn any amount for his name. It is correct that computer generates an ID for temporary advance issued on user ID Number for the purpose of withdrawal of amount.

24. PW-14 Ghulam Rasool Inspector FIA /ACC Islamabad. He was the witness who arrested Liaqat Ali, appellant and co-accused Shakeel and Nazrana Shah and claimed that Liaqat Ali accused/appellant was confronted with the record, but did not specify any record nor response of Liaqat Ali before him was spoken before the Court. He has also not referred any inquiry report by the Department nor tender the same in evidence. During cross-examination he deposed as under; "It is correct that to initiate process for temporary advance minute sheet is to be drawn in the name of individual to whom the temporary advance is to be disbursed." "It is correct that the case of the complainant was regarding embezzlement for the period from 1998 to 2013. It is correct that only record for the years 2006 to 2013 was provided to me that too is in photo state form. It is correct that Shakeel accused was authorized by MT department to collect cross cheque from the Finance department issued in the name of officer who applied for temporary advance. It is correct that during investigation it was not transpired that any cheque got encashed by Shakeel accused while depositing in his account. It is not in my knowledge whether Shakeel Ahmad accused was posted in MT department in the year 1998 to 2006. It is correct that the record pertaining year from 1998 to 2006 was destroyed." "It is correct that the whole case of the prosecution based upon the preparation of forged bills by putting forged signatures of the officials. The alleged forged signatures were of Yousaf Khan GM/MT, Waqar Abbas Naqvi Director/MT and Muhammad Shafique GM/Finance. It was found from the record provided by the department during investigation in the shape of folders (Exh of folders are under consideration regarding their admissibility), that any of the above officials were not produced before the Magistrate to get their specimen signatures for comparison with the alleged bills etc." Emphasis supplied.

25. PW-15 Aoun Abbas SI in PS FIA/AHTC RWP was another investigator who deposed during cross-examination as under; The case was revolving around the bogus bills. To declare a document as bogus it is mandatory that first of all the question bill should be verified however I have not got any bill verified from any petrol pump. I have not seen the statement of any driver of AWC who might have said that the bill attributed to him is Bogus. It is correct that during course of departmental inquiry name of accused persons Muhammad Yousaf and Muhammad Shafique Awan were not recommended to FIA. It is correct that the inquiry report along with annexures are not original document rather the same is photocopy. No allegation of embezzlement or financial corruption has been leveled by the department against accused Waqar Abbas Naqvi in inquiry report dated 07.07.2014. As long as the investigation remained with me, I have not verify (sic) the signatures of Syed Waqar Abbas Naqvi from hand writing expert in any manner. I didn't ask the complainant to provide Audit report of the Finance department pertaining year 1998 to 2013. It is correct that no original bills of any of the filling stations regarding the alleged period of embezzlement was provided to me by the complainant.

26. Prosecution was obliged to prove the charge against the accused through reliable evidence; mere on the basis of presumptions, neither the conviction can be recorded nor sustained. It is settled principle of law that conviction must be based on unimpeachable, trustworthy and reliable evidence. Any doubt arising in prosecution case is to be resolved in favour of the accused and burden of proof is always on prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is also an established principle of law and equity that it is better that 100 guilty persons should let off but one innocent person should not suffer. In attending circumstances, prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused/appellant beyond shadow of doubt and numerous doubts have crept into the evidence, therefore, benefit of which is extended to the appellant not as a matter of grace but as a matter of right. Reliance is placed on cases reported as "Maqsood Alam and another v. The State and others" (2024 SCMR 156), "Abdul Qadeer v. The State (2024 SCMR 1146), "Muhammad Imtiaz Baig and another v. The State through Prosecutor General, Punjab, Lahore and another" (2024 SCMR 1191), "Muhammad Hassan and another v. The State and others" (2024 SCMR 1427), "Khial Muhammad v. The State (2024 SCMR 1490) and "Muhammad Ijaz alias Billa and another v. The State and others" (2024 SCMR 1507)..

27. For what has been discussed above, this Court has no doubt whatsoever to hold that prosecution had failed miserably to bring on record any iota of evidence which could in any manner connect the accused/appellants with the commission of offence, whereas, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to have proved its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Consequently, (Criminal Appeal No.264 of 2024 filed by Syed Waqar Abbas Naqvi and Criminal Appeal No.296 of 2024 filed by Liaquat Ali, appellants against their convictions are allowed, and convictions and sentences recorded by the learned trial Court against them are set-aside. They are acquitted of the charge. Their sentences have already been suspended by this Court, therefore, sureties stand discharged. The case property, if any, be disposed of in accordance with law and the record of the learned trial court be sent back immediately. As the prosecution has failed to prove its case, therefore, Crl. Appeal No.388 of 2024 filed against acquittal of Syed Nazrana Shah, Shakil Ahmad, Shafique Awan, Muhammad Yousaf and Muhammad Ashfaq, accused is dismissed. JK/W-4/L Order accordingly.