Acquittal of accused

Complainant alleged that accused was her former husband who prepared a false Nikahnamashowing her different name to reap benefits from his employer organization

Trial Court as well as High Court acquitted the accused of the charge

Validity

Original Nikahnama was produced by complainant herself before Trial Court, which demonstrated that everything was well within her knowledge from the beginning

Nikahnama in question was never sent for forensic test or to handwriting expert for verifying its genuineness

Star witness could have been custodian of the record of employer organization to depose and testify actual position along with the details of benefits if any availed on account of alleged fake Nikahnama

Neither any witness was produced nor called upon through summons of Court as prosecution witness to verify genuineness of official record

To prove guilt victim must have been motivated and inundated or swayed by disingenuous representation to act; there should be delivery of property or worthful security; the straight upshot of inducement must be altering or obliterating a valuable security or document and the act must have actuated harm/injury or impairment to victim

Acquittal was not merely a verdict of not guilty, rather it was a ratification and endorsement that the State failed to discharge burden of proof for the guilt

Such confirmation of declaring accused not guilty maintained exalted reverence

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgments passed by the Courts below, as there was no illegality, irregularity or perversity

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

From bare perusal of second proviso to S.23(3) of the Act, 1947, it was crystal clear that requirement of filing a complaint in writing by a person authorized by the Central Government or the State Bank was only in respect of alleged commission of offences by those persons who were duly authorized under S. 3, 3A or 3AA of the Act, 1947

However, if a person was not authorized under said provisions of law, then there shall be no need of filing any such complaint

No material had been produced by or on behalf of the applicant to establish that he had been authorized by the State Bank to deal in foreign exchange, foreign currency notes or foreign coins, postal notes, money orders, bank drafts, travelers' cheques and transfers, as provided in the said provisions of law

From the language of second proviso it was quite apparent that requirement of filing a complaint in writing by a person authorized by the Central Government or the State Bank had been exempted in respect of those persons who were not authorized under Ss. 3, 3A or 3AA to deal in foreign exchange, foreign currency notes or foreign coins, postal notes, money orders, bank drafts, travelers' cheques and transfers

In this view of the matter, legal objection raised on behalf of the accused/applicant was not sustainable and it could safely be held that the Trial Court/Tribunal was fully competent to proceed with the case of the applicant

It was alleged by the applicant that FIA officials conducted raid without obtaining search warrant from the concerned Magistrate and there were also other violations of the provisions of S. 19(3) of the Act

Suffice to observe that the fact as to whether any search warrant was obtained by the FIA officials or not from the concerned Magistrate could be determined only after recording of evidence and without undertaking such exercise, it would be premature to adjudge this fact

In case the applicant's plea was that he was innocent and had been involved in the case falsely and/or with mala fide intention, he would be afforded sufficient opportunity to prove his innocence during trial of the case

Besides, other remedies admissible under the law would also be available to applicant for initiating appropriate proceedings against the complainant and also for awarding compensation to him, if ultimately it was found and concluded that the complaint was frivolous and vexatious and had been filed with ulterior motives only to victimize the applicant

Criminal Misc. Application having no merits was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner / accused was alleged to be a foreigner who had fraudulently obtained Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC) of Pakistan

Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court declined to acquit petitioner / accused under S.249-A, Cr.P.C.

Validity

NADRA Verification Board is the supreme statutory authority responsible for verification and authentication of national identity

Verification Board declared through its report that petitioner / accused was a genuine citizen

Such report was not a mere opinion but a conclusive and authoritative finding rendered by the very organization that initiated the criminal process

Such determination emanated from the complainant itself which had effectively dismantled the very foundation of the prosecution case, leaving no probability of conviction within the contemplation of law

Offence under S.14 of Foreigners Act, 1946 was contingent entirely upon the person who was a 'foreigner' and such status was conclusively negated by NADRA

Offences of forgery and cheating under Penal Code,1860 were predicated on the document which was forged and identity was fabricated but issuance of the document had certified authenticity of the CNIC, thus element of forgery and cheating had evaporated

High Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. set aside order passed by two Courts below and acquitted petitioner / accused of the charge

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Application under S. 249-A, Cr.P.C., filed for the acquittal of the accused same was dismissed, revision was filed but same was also dismissed

Validity

Petitioner alleged that no incriminating material was on record as such he be acquitted from the charge

Record showed that the charge against the petitioner was that he extended threats of dire consequences from his cell number on the mobile phone of complainant but admittedly, neither cell phone nor its Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) nor the mobile phone of the complainant was taken into possession by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation

Sole reliance of the prosecution in the case was on the audio C.D allegedly preparedby a prosecution witness

Said witness, after copying the audio from the mobile phone of the complainant while pasting the same at the C.D

Since the C.D was prepared after copying the original voice from the mobile phone, it lost its authenticity because the same was not the original device on which the voice of the accused was recorded

Moreover, the same was not provided by the complainant to the police rather by the said witness after copying the same from the mobile phone of the complainant

Thus, the preparation of the C.D., in any way, did not fulfill the criteria as provided by the Supreme Court

Best course in this case would have been that the Police should have taken into possession the mobile phone of the complainant on which the threatening call was received and got it forensically tested after comparing it with the voice of the petitioner/accused but that attempt was not made by the Investigating Agency to reach to some proper conclusion

Evidence, i.e., the compact disc having audio could not be used against the petitioner as the same was not prepared/generated in view of the parameters determined by the Supreme Court

According to the contents of FIR, co-accused, clerk of accused, also allegedly extended threats of dire consequences to the complainant by using his mobile Phone

Similarly, other co-accused also extended threats and also abused the complainant

Said two co-accused persons were declared as innocent by the police

Admittedly, such findings of the police had never been challenged by the complainant at any higher forum of police hierarchy

So, it was manifestly clear that the charges leveled against the petitioner by complainant were groundless and analyzing and viewing the incriminating evidence/material, allegedly with which prosecution was equipped, there was no probability of the petitioner/accused being convicted

Petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused persons were charged for acquiring assets beyond known sources of their income but Trial Court acquitted them of the charge

Validity

Initial burden was on prosecution to establish allegation / charges levelled against accused persons

Prosecution failed to discharge its initial burden of proving allegations against accused persons

Criteria for evaluating evidence in appeal against conviction and in appeal against acquittal were distinct

Interference in order of acquittal was to be made where there was a gross mis-reading and mis-appreciation of evidence resulting in miscarriage of justice

High Court declined to interfere in judgment of acquittal as it was not suffering from any illegality, infirmity and was based on valid and sound reasons

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Mischief committed by fire or explosive substance, criminal intimidation, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Acquittal of accused

Rule of consistency

Applicability

Scope

Prosecution case was that the accused along with his co-accused were present in cattle pond of complainant, they were encircled by the complainant party and caught hold of accused, while co-accused by making aerial firing and extending threats made their escape good

Record showed that acquitted accused were fully implicated by the complainant and two alleged eye-witnesses of the incident, rather said two accused were assigned harsher role than the accused, which was evident from the evidence of all three witnesses

Accused was also alleged to have made aerial firing

Despite that those two accused had been acquitted by the Trial Court by extending them benefit of doubt, whereas present accused had been convicted which seemed to be in clear violation of 'rule of consistency'.

Application under S. 5 of Limitation Act, 1908, was not maintainable in cases relating to applications made under S. 417(2), seeking grant of special leave to appeal on the order of acquittal in a case instituted upon a complaint

High Court was not empowered to condone any delay in filing applications for grant of special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal passed by Trial Court

Petition for special leave to appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Power vested under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C. can be exercised by Trial Court at any stage of trial.

Petitioner was not arrayed as accused in criminal complaint but he sought dismissal of compliant under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C.

Trial Court dismissed application on grounds that he had no locus standi to file such application

Validity

Trial Court, under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C., was vested with wide power enabling it to see through wall on its other end

Petitioner was neither an accused nor complainant rather was a stranger to proceedings

Application filed by petitioner could not be entertained by Trial Court and same was rightly rejected

Criminal courts were conferred on jurisdiction under Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 quite in line with Art.175(2) of the Constitution

High Court declined to interfere in matter and maintained order passed by Trial Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Trial court acquitted accused, but directed SHO concerned to register a criminal case against Police Official concerned under S.26 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, who was complainant in the case and allegedly recovered narcotic (charas) weighing 250-grams from accused

Validity

Section 26 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, could only be invoked where it appeared that seizure and arrest was vexatious and unnecessary and direction for registration of FIR only be exercised when it was established on the record through cogent evidence that the narcotics had been foisted upon the accused and he was falsely implicated in the case, otherwise, in each and every case of acquittal, it would be pressed by the accused to direct the Police Officer for registration of FIR against the complainant (Police official) or to proceed in terms of S. 26 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 against the complainant (police official), which would certainly damage the scheme of law and the Police Officers would disincline to be the complainant in the case

Contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which might have occurred due to lapse of time, could not cause punishment of the complainant (police official)

Criminal revision was allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment to the extent of directions issued for registration of FIR against the accused/appellant as well as initiation of departmental proceedings.

Petitioners/complainants alleged that respondents had levelled allegations of zina against them, who were wedded couple, which caused mental torture/stress and agony to them

Respondents, in their statements alleged that petitioners/ complainants were continuing merital tie after execution of divorce deed

Said statements of the respondents were based on good faith, as after divorce deed spouses could not fulfil their matrimonial affairs as husband and wife

Under S.3 of Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, there must be specific allegations of "imputation of zina"

Petitioners had failed to prove the requisite ingredients of the "Offence of Qazf"

Statement of petitioner recorded during preliminary inquiry of the complaint case, had absolved the respondents of levelling allegations of adultery or zina

Statement by respondents during court proceedings that relations in between spouses/petitioners, after execution of divorce deed were against the principles of 'Shariah', by no stretch of imagination could constitute the offence of qazf

If the defence had taken a specific stance in their statements under S.342, Cr.P.C. even then it was duty of the prosecution to prove the entire case at their own strength

Even inconsistent pleas taken by accused would not give any benefit to the prosecution as it was settled duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt

Once reasonable doubt in the prosecution case was entertained its benefit must be extended to accused, not as a grace but as a right

Testimonies of all examined prosecution witnesses were full of contradictions with each other on material points

Trial Court rightly dismissed complaint of petitioners

Impugned judgment passed by Trial Court was speaking order after thrashing grain from chaff and correctly reached at the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to bring home the charge against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt

Impugned judgment did not call for interference; resultantly petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Section 265-K, Cr.P.C., empowered the court to acquit an accused at any stage of proceedings, if the court was of the opinion that if all the evidence, which was proposed to be produced by the prosecution was admitted as correct even then there was no chance of conviction of accused for the offence he was charged with.

Trial Court acquitted respondent/accused, but directed S.H.O. concerned to register a criminal case against Police Official concerned under S.26 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, who was complainant in the case and allegedly recovered charas weighing 1250 grams from accused

Trial Court, while passing a direction for registration of case under S.26 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, had failed to take into account the pre-requisite mentioned therein

In order to proceed against a person in terms of S.26 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 it had to be established on the record that accused was vexatiously and unnecessarily detained, searched or arrested in the offence

Impugned judgment of the Trial Court was completely silent on said aspect and did not term the search or arrest as vexatious and unnecessary

Court discussed the veracity of the other prosecution witnesses

Penal clause provided under S.26 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 could only be invoked, where it appeared that the seizure and arrest was vexatious or unnecessary, otherwise in each and every case of acquittal, it would be pressed by accused to proceed in terms of S. 26 against the complainant, which would certainly damage the scheme of the law; and the Police Officials would become reluctant to be complainant in the case

Allowing appeal, set aside impugned order passed by the Trial Court to the extent of issuance of direction for registration of case against appellant/Police Official under S.26 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

Double presumption of innocence in a criminal acquittal appeal would be in favour of accused unless something concrete was pointed out or there was evident flaw in the judgment.

View taken by Trial Court was just and quite reasonable, not suffering from any perversity and it was not a case of misreading or non-reading of evidence

High Court observed that there was no doubt that a person was murdered but Court was to follow evidence on record

Accused could not be convicted on the basis of unreliable and untrustworthy evidence of eye witnesses running counter to medial evidence

Prosecution failed to prove its case against accused beyond any shadow of doubt and Trial Court had rightly appreciated evidence brought on record

High Court declined to interfere in judgment rendered by Trial Court which was not perverse

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Trial Court after appreciating evidence, contents of report under S.173, Cr.P.C. and other documents on record had passed acquittal order

Acquittal recorded in favour of accused had double presumption of innocence

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Exercise of discretion under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. must be based on reasons, which are to be recorded by court on the basis of material available on record.

Main consideration to be kept in view is whether continuance of proceedings before court would be futile exercise, wastage of time and abuse of process of court or not

If on the basis of facts admitted and patent on record no offence can be made out, then it would amount to abuse of process of law to allow prosecution to continue with trial.

Plea raised by authorities was that there was sufficient evidence against accused which could have resulted in conviction of accused

Validity

In case of corruption and misappropriation of public money, court was required to act with extreme care and caution in deciding such case and should not proceed hastily in acquitting accused persons involved therein either under S.249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C., as the cases might be

Prosecution should provide every possible opportunity to prove its case and establish guilt of accused after a full-fledged trial

Besides evidence of two witnesses, record was also indicative of the fact that two accused who were holders of public office while taking benefit of S.25 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, voluntarily returned embezzled amount acquired by them

Most of bogus claims were submitted by employees of accused and whole embezzled amount of Rs.52 million along with interest was also deposited by co-accused, who happened to be nephew of principal accused

Such evidence required explanation from accused without which it could not have been ignored or discarded from consideration

Orders of acquittal passed by Trial Court were set aside and cases of accused were remanded to Trial Court to proceed from the stage at which the case stood when application of accused persons under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. were decided.

Order of acquittal of accused under S.249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. in appeal or revisions proceedings has not the same sanctity as orders of acquittal on merits

Principles which are to be observed and applied in setting aside findings of acquittal or principles relating to presumption of double innocence, when accused is acquitted after full-fledged inquiry and trial to acquittals under S.265-K, Cr.P.C., are not applicable

Paramount consideration of court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented, which may arise from acquittal of guilty and is no less than from conviction of an innocent

Where admissible evidence is ignored, duty is cast upon appellate court to re-appreciate evidence in case, where accused has been acquitted for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not.

Single circum-stance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind was sufficient for acquittal of accused, not as a matter of grace, but as a matter of right.

High Court, under Art. 203 of the Constitution is responsible for entire administration of justice and is charged with responsibility of supervising all Courts subordinate to it

High Court is competent to take all appropriate measures for preventing maladministration of justice and abuse of process of law in appropriate cases

When case is of no evidence or registration of case is proved to be mala fide or case is purely of civil nature or when there is unexceptional delay in disposal of case causing deplorable mental, physical and financial torture to the person proceeded against, High Court is competent to take cognizance of the matter and by exercising inherent powers under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. to correct a wrong by ordering quashment of F.I.R. and proceedings emanating therefrom

Powers vested in High Court under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. are co-extensive with the powers vested in Trial Court under Ss. 249-A and 265-K, Cr.P.C., and in appropriate cases, can be invoked directly without resorting to decision by Trial Court under Ss. 249-A and 265-K, Cr.P.C. to avoid abuse of process of Court

In appropriate cases, an aggrieved person can seek redressal of his grievance by filing criminal proceedings and civil proceedings simultaneously if provided under relevant statute

Where dispute is purely of civil nature and element of mens rea and criminal intention is missing, a party cannot be allowed to be dragged in criminal proceedings by converting a civil dispute into criminal dispute.

Conviction under S.302(b), P.P.C. and sentences of death awarded by Trial Court was set aside by High Court and accused was acquitted

Validity

Delay of nine hours in lodging F.I.R. and motive set was trivial in nature

Both the eye-witnesses were closely related to deceased as son and nephew

Occurrence had taken place in a broad daylight at public place but not a single witness appeared to support prosecution case

Injuries suffered by deceased were merely abrasions and finding that it reflected conflict between ocular account and medical account was not conjectural

Finding of acquittal in favour of accused was neither against evidence led nor arbitrary

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment of acquittal passed by High Court

Leave to appeal was refused.

Court after hearing the prosecutor and the accused, if considers that the charge is groundless or there is no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence, may acquit the accused.

While deciding application under S.249-A, Cr.P.C. for acquittal, the court had to consider two crucial points, whether the charge was groundless or whether there was no probability of accused being convicted of any offence

Provision of S.249-A, Cr.P.C. had given right to accused to move application for his acquittal at any stage of the proceedings, which could be even prior to framing of charge or recording of evidence, or at any subsequent stage; and there was no bar imposed by law conditional to stage of proceedings

Court, in case of dismissal of application moved under S.249-A, Cr.P.C. should discuss the entire material available on record with probable cause on the basis of which reasonable grounds appeared to continue the trial

By enacting Ss.249-A and 265-K, Cr.P.C. the Legislature in its wisdom did not leave the question of recording evidence as condition before taking action under either of the provisions; and the use of expression at any stage of the case was indicative enough of the intention that any such stage could be the very initial stage, after taking cognizance or it could be a middle stage after recording some proceedings and/or even, it could be a later stage as well

Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. empowered the Presiding Officer of the court to acquit accused at any stage of the trial; and only requirement to be fulfilled, firstly was that hearing was to be given to the prosecutor and counsel of accused; and secondly, reasons to be recorded in support of conclusion that the charge was groundless; or that no probability was of accused being convicted.

Unexplained delay of seven hours in lodging F.LR. and two eye-witnesses resided at a distance of six/seven acres from place of occurrence

Accused were declared innocent during investigation, it was night occurrence and source of light was allegedly a torch which was never taken into possession

Delay in having postmortem conducted

Conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court was set aside by High Court and accused were acquitted of the charge

Validity

Delay in having post modem conducted adversely reflected on credibility of prosecution version

Consideration which weighed with High Court were cogent and borne out from record

Complainant failed to refer to any piece of evidence which could persuade Supreme Court to interfere in the findings recorded by High Court

Leave to appeal was refused.

Petitioner had two fold grievances, firstly that he was blacklisted without providing opportunity of hearing; and secondly he was not paid balance amount towards settlement of his bill

Counsel for the authorities had stated that in view of order passed by the Special Judge, Anti-corruption, by which petitioner's application under S.249-A, Cr.P.C. was allowed and he was acquitted, authorities had no objection for recalling of the order with regard to order whereby the petitioner was blacklisted

Authorities, however, disputed the remaining relief of payment of dues

Petitioner, held, could approach the civil court in accordance with law

Petitioner's counsel had agreed that the petition in the said terms be disposed of

By consent, the order by which petitioner was blacklisted, was set aside; while in respect of payment of his bills, petitioner could approach the court, which would decide the matter in accordance with law.