ALLAH BAKHSH vs MUHAMMAD KHAN and others
This appeal challenges an order passed by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Sargodha, which acquitted all respondents and dismissed the appellant's complaint under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without recording any evidence. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted prematurely by acquitting the accused and dismissing the complaint without conducting a trial or examining evidence, particularly when the allegations required factual determination. The High Court held that the trial court's decision to acquit the respondents without recording a single witness was improper and constituted a miscarriage of justice. The court determined that the issues raised by the parties necessitated a deeper appreciation of evidence, which is the prerogative of the trial court and cannot be undertaken by the appellate court. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the impugned order, restored the complaint, and directed the parties to appear before the trial court for proceedings on the merits. The key principle established is that an acquittal under Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 should not be granted when the case requires a factual inquiry and the examination of evidence.
- Can a trial court acquit an accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without recording any evidence?
- Is it appropriate for an appellate court to decide on the merits of a case requiring factual inquiry when the trial court has not recorded evidence?
- Does the dismissal of a complaint and acquittal of accused without trial constitute a miscarriage of justice?
- Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 218, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
ORDER
' This appeal is directed against the order dated 26-8-2003 passed by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Sargodha whereby the learned Special Court, on an application filed by the accused persons under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Acquitted the respondents who were arrayed as accused in the complainant case filed by the appellant/complainant under sections 218/468/471/420/109, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and the complaint. Was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant, while calling in question the impugned order of acquittal of the respondents and dismissal of complaint, submits that although the application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Was filed before the learned trial Court on behalf of few accused persons but the learned Special Court has acquitted all the accused/respondents from the case without even recording any evidence coupled with dismissal of the complaint case which has led to miscarriage of justice. Further submits that it would be in the paramount interest of the parties if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is decided on merit by the learned trial Court.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 6, while defending the impugned order of acquittal, submits that there was no probability of the respondents/accused to be convicted by the learned trial Court because there is no allegation of acceptance of the alleged bribery by the respondents. Advancing his arguments, learned counsel further submits that the inquiry in this case was conducted under the orders of the competent authority wherein it was found that not a single inch of the land in question has been taken away by any of the respondents or even through collusion of the respondents from the present appellant; that on the same facts F.I.R. Was recorded against two persons while the complaint was filed by the complainant against seven persons/ respondents; that in F.I.R. No,105 there was no allegation of corruption against the present respondents while there are wild allegations against two persons while in the complaint four persons have been made as an accused in addition to the above said two persons. While concluding his arguments, submits that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or material irregularity to warrant interference by this Honourable Court.
4. Learned counsel appeasing on behalf of respondent No:7 submits that the alleged occurrence took place on 10-12-1996, respondent No,7 was posted A there on 17-12-1996 meaning thereby that he was not present but despite that he has been summoned.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, have gone through the impugned order dated 26- 8-2003 and have also given anxious consideration to their respective submissions made at the bar. The points raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties need deeper appreciation of evidence of the parties concerned which would entail factual inquiry. This exercise cannot be undertaken by this Court while sitting in the appellate jurisdiction. It is the prerogative of the learned trial Court to have reached at a just conclusion after recording of evidence of the parties so tendered oral or documentary. I find that not a single witness has been recorded by the learned trial Court. In the afore-referred circumstances, this appeal is allowed, the impugned order dated 26-8-2003 passed by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Sargodha is set aside, the complaint filed by the appellant shall be deemed to be pending and the parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 28-10-2004 to proceed with the matter. The record of the trial Court shall be sent back forthwith.