ALLAH BAKHSH vs MUHAMMAD KHAN etc.
This criminal appeal challenges the order passed by the Special Judge Anti Corruption, whereby the respondents were acquitted under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on an application filed by the accused persons, and the appellant's complaint under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 was dismissed without recording any evidence. The core legal question is whether an acquittal and dismissal of a private complaint under Section 265-K Cr.P.C. can be sustained without recording evidence and conducting a trial where the points raised require deeper appreciation of evidence and factual inquiry. The court held that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused and dismissing the complaint without recording any evidence, as factual inquiry and deeper appreciation of evidence fall within the domain of the trial court. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the impugned order of acquittal was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial court for a decision on merits.
- Can a trial court acquit an accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without recording any evidence?
- Whether an appellate court can undertake a deeper appreciation of evidence and factual inquiry that falls within the domain of the trial court?
- Is it proper to dismiss a private complaint without recording oral or documentary evidence of the parties?
- 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 complaint case filed by the appellant/complainant under Sections 218/468/471/420/109 PPC 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 FIR was recorded against two persons while the complaint was filed by the complainant against seven persons/respondents, that in FIR 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 Hon'ble Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No, 7 submits that the alleged occurrence took place on 10.12.1996, Respondent No, 7 was posted 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 witnesses 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.