STATE through CHAIRMAN, NAB vs IMDAD A. SHAIKH
This is an acquittal appeal filed by the State through the Chairman, National Accountability Bureau, challenging the judgment of the Accountability Court, which acquitted the respondent, Imdad Ali Shaikh, in a corruption reference. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the trial court's acquittal was based on a misreading or non-reading of evidence, or if it suffered from any illegality warranting appellate interference. Upon reviewing the record and the trial court's findings, the High Court determined that the prosecution failed to demonstrate any defect in the appreciation of evidence. The Court held that the trial court correctly evaluated the evidence and properly extended the benefit of doubt to the respondent. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal in limine. The judgment reaffirms the established legal principle that an acquittal judgment confers a double presumption of innocence upon the accused, placing a very heavy burden on the prosecution to provide strong, compelling reasons to justify appellate interference with an order of acquittal.
- What is the burden of proof on the prosecution in an appeal against an acquittal?
- Does an acquittal judgment confer a double presumption of innocence upon the accused?
- Under what circumstances will an appellate court interfere with a trial court's judgment of acquittal?
- Section 9, National Accountability Ordinance 1999
ORDER
1. Muhammad Mujeebullah Siddiqi, J.--This Acquittal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5th May. 2004, recorded by the Judge, Accountability Court No, 1 Province of Sindh, Karachi, in Reference No, 21 of 2003 (Old No, 49/1997), whereby co-accused Abdul Qadir Tawakkal has been convicted for the offence under Section 9 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, while the Respondent/Accused Imdad Ali Shaikh has been acquitted.
2. The prosecution feeling, aggrieved with the acquittal of respondent has preferred this Acquittal Appeal.
3. Pre-admission notice was issued to the respondent.
4. No have heard Mr. Amanullah Khan, learned A.D.P.G.A. for the Appellant (NAB) and M/s Rasheed A.
5. Razvi and Mahmood A. Qureshi,, Advocates for the Respondent/Accused.
6. Mr. Amanullah Khan has addressed very lengthy arguments in support of his contentions that the judgment of the acquittal suffers from illegalities, non-appreciation of evidence on record and, improper findings. In support of his contentions, he has taken us through the impugned judgment as well as the depositions of the prosecution witnesses.
7. After going through the impugned judgment, we have found that the learned trial Court has considered the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses and no case of non-reading of evidence has been made out. After going through the impugned findings as well as the evidence of the witnesses, who were examined to establish the guilt of respondent, Mr. Amanullah Khan, is not able to show that the appreciation of evidence by the learned trial Court suffers from misreading of evidence. He has further unable to show us that the learned trial Court in arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the Respondent Imdad A. Shakh and consequently, the respondent is entitled to the benefit of doubt has committed any illegality or the finding is violative of the principles relating to the safe criminal administration of justice.
8. Although in an Acquittal Appeal reappraisal of evidence is not required but for the satisfaction of the learned counsel for the appellant, we allowed him to read the entire evidence on record and even thereafter the Learned counsel for the appellant was not able to show that there is any defect in the appreciation of evidence and consequently, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned finding is not open to any exception. At this stage, we would like to reiterate the principle pertaining to the Acquittal Appeals, that with the judgment of acquittal an accused person acquires double presumption of innocence and very heavy burden lies on the prosecution by showing the strong reasons for warranting interference by the appellate Court with the judgment of acquittal.
9. We are persuaded to agree with the submission of learned advocates for the Respondent/Accused that no case has been made out for warranting interference by this Court with the impugned judgment of acquittal.
10. For the foregoing reasons, it is held that there is no substance in the Acquittal Appeal, which stands dismissed in limine.