P L D 2026 High Court (AJ&K) 45 (PLP)

CHAUDHARY KHALID RASHEED, J.

FOREWORD: The supra titled appeal has been brought against the judgment and order dated 31.12.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge Anti-Corruption Muzaffarabad whereby the accused-respondent has been acquitted of the charges by extending her the benefit of doubt. Facts briefly stated are, accused/respondent was tried before Sessions Judge/Special Judge Anti-Corruption Muzaffarabad in FIR No.16/2016 registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Muzaffarabad on 23.12.2016 in offences under sections 419, 467, 471, 420-APC and 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act. The allegation against the accused/respondent was, she presented her fake certificate of PTC (Primary Teaching Course). At the conclusion of trial the learned Court below acquitted the accused/respondent of the charges vide its impugned judgment dated 31.12.2022, hence the captioned appeal. STANCE OF THE APPELLANT: The learned State counsel raised a solitary argument that the accused/respondent obtained continuous increments in her salary on the basis of the said fake certificate of PTC, hence the same caused to be recovered from her but this pivotal scenario has not been judiciously pondered in the impugned judgment. REFUTATION OF THE RESPONDENTS: The learned counsel for the respondent braced the impugned judgment on all counts and beseeched for the dismissal of the instant appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone through record of the case with due care and caution. COURT's OBSERVATIONS AND RELEVANT LAW: As per the prosecution allegation levelled against the accused/respondent, she had obtained a fake certificate of PTC and on the basis of said fake certificate obtained increments. The prosecution miserably failed to bring on record any proof of the fact that the accused/respondent applied to the relevant quarters for including her PTC certificate with her service file. The investigating officer also admitted during cross-examination that no verification of the PTC certificate of accused/respondent was obtained. It is also established from the evidence that the accused/respondent did not obtain service as teacher on the basis of PTC certificate, therefore the Court below was justified to acquit the accused/respondent. For conviction of the accused/respondent it was enjoined upon the prosecution to substantiate sine any apparent flaw that accused/respondent got prepared the disputed fake certificate of primary teacher, intentionally used it for continuation of her service and for obtaining increment of the same certificate but in this regard the prosecution remained mum. It is also pertinent to mention that neither the aileged fake PTC certificate recovered during investigation nor any document which could certify its fakeness is a part of Court file which were sine qua non for conviction in the instant case, hence the acquittal of the accused/respondent is justified and liable to be sustained. It is also liable to observe that this is an appeal against an acquittal order recorded by the Court below, the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal is comparatively confined and restricted because after acquittal the double presumption of innocence is significantly added to the cardinal rule of criminal jurisprudence, that an accused shall be presumed to be innocent until proved guilty; in other words, the presumption of innocence is multiplied. Reliance in this regard may be placed on 2020 SCR

367. The Courts are normally reluctant to meddle such an acquittal order, unless it flagrantly appears to be perverse, passed in gross violation of law, suffering from the errors of grave misreading or non-reading of the evidence, thus such judgments should not be lightly obstructed and heavy burden lies upon the shoulders of prosecution to rebut the presumption of innocence which accused has earned and attained on account of his acquittal. It has been categorically held in plethora of judgments that intruding in a judgment of acquittal is a rare phenomena and prosecution is always expected to establish that glaring errors of law and fact has been committed by the Court in approaching at the decision, which would result into a crucial miscarriage of justice; the acquittal judgment is perfunctory or wholly artificial or a shocking conclusion has been drawn. Reversing the acquittal order is tantamount to putting a free bird back to the cage as has been held in 2018 SCR

661. Moreover, in number of dictums of this Court, it has been categorically held that such judgment should not be interjected until the findings are perverse, arbitrary, foolish, artificial, speculative and ridiculous. Even a Court of appeal should not hinder simply for the reason that on the re-appraisal of the evidence a different conclusion could possibly be drawn, the factual conclusions should not be upset, except when palpably perverse, suffering from serious and material factual infirmities. Reliance may be placed on 2014 SCR 770, 2014 SCR 442 and 2017 PCr.LJ

185. The reasons listed in the impugned judgment for acquittal of the accused respondent amply endorsed by the record, the ratio decidendi of the impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity fancifulness or anomaly, hence, the instant appeal entails to show the doors. DISPOSAL: The sum and crux of the above debate is, finding no essence the instant appeal is hereby dropped as being spineless. JK/6/HC(AJ&K) Appeal dismissed.