Application for acquittal

2018 PCrLJ 410 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302, 324, 337-E, 109 & 34Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), Ss. 3 & 4Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 345(2) & 265-KAnti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah, abetment, common intention, causing explosion likely to endanger life or property, act of terrorism

Compromise

Application for acquittal

Parties during pendency of the case, effected compromise and the accused-respondents were acquitted from the charges on the basis of said compromise

Prosecution challenged the order of acquittal on the ground that compromise was defective as certain persons, who had no locus standi to effect compromise had appeared on behalf of legal heirs of the deceased and injured

Validity

Record showed that Trial Court accepted the statements of unauthorized persons for effecting compromise, which made the compromise defective

Said inherent defect in the compromise could not be cured by any means

Section 345(2), Cr.P.C. did not permit such a proxy on behalf of any victim

Appeal was accepted by the Chief Court by setting aside order of acquittal and remanded the matter with the direction to summon the legal heirs and injured, record their statements and pass appropriate order.

2017 CLD 1117 PUNJAB-ENVIRONMENTAL-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 6, 7, 11 & 16(3)Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.265-KEnvironmental protection orderComplaintApplication for acquittal

Complaint against accused had been filed with the allegations of commission of offence under S.11 of Punjab Environmental Protection Act, 1997

Complaint had been filed by the Director General Environmental Protection Authority, but it did not bear the signatures of the Director General, rather same had been signed by Deputy Director

Said practice was not approved

Criminal complaint had to be signed and proved by the complainant himself and not any body else

Director General could only delegate the functions under provisions mentioned in Ss. 6 & 7 of Punjab Environmental Protection Act, 1997

If the Environmental Protection Order was issued under the conferred powers, the Director must have mentioned the same in the order itself

Environmental Protection Order was an appealable and quasi judicial order, which must be signed by the Director General

Environmental Protection Authority, in the present case, did not procure any analysis report to attract the provisions of S.11 of the Punjab Environmental Protection Act, 1997

In absence of analysis report, Environmental Tribunal could not presume that the discharge of waste water of accused unit exceeded the limit

No specification of the proposed treatment plant had been given in the Environmental Protection Order

Construction of settling tanks, could also be considered to be the arrangement made for preliminary treatment of the waste water

No offence under S.11 of the Punjab Environmental Protection Act, 1997 was made out

No likelihood of conviction of accused under S.11 of the Punjab Environmental Protection Act, 1997 existed and to proceed further with the complaint would be a futile exercise

Application under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C., was allowed and accused stood acquitted, in circumstances.

2016 PLD 87 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 265-K & 265-FApplication for acquittalDefence of alibiAccused took plea of alibi and was acquitted upon acceptance of a document in support of said plea

Document of defence could not be the base for final determination/acquittal without letting the opposite party to make an attempt to disprove or at least challenge the authenticity of such document and if such was allowed to hold the field, the same would frustrate the very scheme of the 'Trial Procedure' as provided under S.265-F of the Cr.P.C.

Plea of alibi can be substantiated through leading evidence which an accused could, no doubt enjoy, but only at accused's turn within meaning of S.265-F of the Cr.P.C.

Charge against accused was of 'abetment or conspiracy' and to constitute an offence for abetment or conspiracy, physical presence of the accused at the time of commission of offence was not required

Impugned order was set aside and case was remanded to Trial Court.

2015 PCrLJ 753 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

S. 265-KPenal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 34 & 311Qatl-i-amd, common intention, tazir after waiving or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amdApplication for acquittal

Complainant, who was father of accused, was not eye-witness of the occurrence and he had disowned the FIR allegedly lodged by him in his statement before court

FIR which was the foundation of criminal case; if the same was disowned by its lodger, nothing remained there in the case

Eye-witnesses also negated themselves to be witnesses of the occurrence

Other private prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution version

Case, despite being without any evidence, Trial Court ignored that aspect while disposing of application of accused persons, filed under S.265-K, Cr.P.C.

Compromise effected between accused persons, and the legal representatives of the deceased, was not such that accused could have confessed about the guilt, or had paid any compensation to the legal representatives

Accused persons had been released on bail merely on making a statement by the legal representatives of the deceased lady that they had pardoned accused persons

Observation made in the bail granting order could not be used by the parties for conviction or acquittal of accused

Accused was to be treated as innocent, unless it was proved on the basis of best possible evidence that he was connected with the offence alleged to have been committed by him, and as such deserved to be convicted to meet the ends of justice

Case of accused in view of evidence was that of acquittal

Forgiveness or compromise, was effective in Tazir cases, if the matter related to "Haqooq-ul-Ibad"

Compromise entered into by the parties, could not be taken as incriminating piece of evidence against accused

Islam was in favour of AFW (pardon)

Even if the act of compromise in tazir was taken as implied extra judicial confession, even then, it would not be sufficient to create incriminating circumstances

Trial Court was not justified to read in evidence the simple and plain statements of the legal representative recorded before Judicial Magistrate for the release of accused persons on bail against accused

Impugned order was not maintainable.

2012 PCrLJ 999 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 365-A, 506/2, 216, 147, 148 & 149Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.249-A & 265-KAbduction, harbouring offender and act of terrorismApplication for acquittal

Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, passed impugned order without considering the material available on record including the statement of one of the abductees and statements of relatives of another abductee

Application filed under S.249-A, Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the court with observation that the report of re-investigation was not binding upon the court; and the Police Officials recorded their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C., in which they implicated accused and their names appeared in the F.I.R.

If the Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, was of the view that at that stage, acquittal was not possible, then he should have considered the entire material available on record; and should have discussed with rationale as to why acquittal at that stage was not possible, but neither the Judge considered the effect and implication of statements recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C. in which abductee and their relatives did not implicate accused, nor any exact findings had been incorporated in the order warranting the dismissal of application of acquittal

Trial Court, while deciding application under S.249-A, Cr.P.C. had failed to consider and appreciate material on record and decided the application in a manner which was contrary to the very spirit and scope of S.249-A, Cr.P.C.

Whether charge was groundless or not or probability of conviction was there or not, same could only be decided once the Trial Court considered the entire material available on record

Report of Crime Branch, was not normal or routine report submitted under S.173, Cr.P.C., but it was a report based on re-investigation of entire matter which was not binding

Impugned order was set aside and application moved under S.249-A, Cr.P.C. would be deemed pending

Judge Anti-Terrorism Court was directed to deicide the application afresh, after hearing the applicants/accused and prosecution and pass a speaking order, within a period of one month on the basis of entire material available on record.