N'ASIR ALTAF vs KHALID BASHIR BUTT and another
This matter concerns two criminal appeals, one filed by the complainant and the other by the State, challenging the acquittal of the respondent, Khalid Bashir Butt, by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Sargodha. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in acquitting the respondent under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the evidence presented regarding a corruption raid. The High Court reviewed the raid report and the statements of the complainant and the stenographer, noting that the stenographer, from whose pocket the tainted money was recovered, had been acquitted. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish that any member of the raiding party witnessed the respondent placing the money in the stenographer's pocket or heard the conversation between the complainant and the respondent. Consequently, the Court held that the trial court committed no illegality or irregularity in the acquittal. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the principle that an acquittal based on a lack of direct evidence connecting the accused to the alleged offence, particularly when the prosecution fails to substantiate the chain of events during a raid, is legally sound.
- Whether an acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is justified when the prosecution fails to provide direct evidence linking the accused to the recovery of tainted money?
- Does the failure of a raiding party to witness the transfer of alleged bribe money undermine the prosecution's case against the accused?
- Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---This order will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,1958 of 2003 titled as Nisar Altaf v. Khalid Bashir Butt etc. And Criminal Appeal No,362- of 2004 titled as State v. Khalid Bashir Butt XEN.
2. ' Record has been received. I have gone through the same especially the raid report. Tariq Mehmood Stenographer during the raid has made a statement that he was working in the room of Khalid Bashir Butt XEN on Computer and Khalid Bashir Butt XEN put the money in his pocket, immediately raiding party entered and recovered the said amount from his pocket. He has stated that he had not done anything in this case, then, there is a statement of Nisar Altaf, who had stated that he had given the tainted money to Khalid Bashir Butt XEN and he put the same in the pocket of Tariq Mehmood Stenographer and he also gave Rs,5,000 to Abdul Majeed. Tariq Mehmood Stenographer was made an accused but he was acquitted under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. While Khalid Bashir Butt XEN had also been acquitted by the learned Special Judge Anti Corruption, Sargodha under section 265-K, Cr. P.0 .
3. ' Learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No,1958 of 2003 and learned Public Prosecutor in Criminal Appeal No,362 of 2004 submit that there was sufficient evidence on record which can connect Khalid Bashir Butt XEN with the commission of offence. They further submit that no evidence was recorded and the learned trial Court had acquitted respondent. ;' I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record especially raid report. Tariq Mehmood Stenographer should have been cited as prosecution witness while he was made an accused in this case and the learned trial Court acquitted him undersection 265-K, Cr.P.C. although tainted money was recovered from his pocket, neither any member of the raiding party according to the raid report heard the conversation between Nisar Altaf complainant and Khalid Bashir Butt XEN or seen with their own eyes that Khalid Bashir Butt XEN put the tainted money amounting to Rs,10,000 in the pocket of Tariq Mehmood Stenographer, so I am of the considered opinion that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the learned trial Court while acquitting Khalid Bashir Butt XEN/respondent in this case. In this view of the matter, there is no force in both these appeals and the same are dismissed.