THE STATE through Chairman vs ABDUL GHAFFAR SHEIKH
This criminal acquittal appeal was filed by the State against the judgment of the Accountability Court, which acquitted the respondent of charges related to the fraudulent withdrawal of funds. The core legal question was whether the respondent's act of countersigning a cheque, which was later subject to fraudulent alteration, warranted a criminal conviction despite findings that the beneficiary had voluntarily returned the funds and that the respondent's actions constituted merely a procedural lapse. The High Court upheld the acquittal, reasoning that the evidence presented, including the departmental inquiry report, established that the respondent derived no personal benefit and that his conduct amounted only to negligence. Consequently, the Court held that there was no reasonable likelihood of conviction based on the available material. The judgment reinforces the principle that where evidence indicates a lack of criminal intent or personal gain, and where the alleged misconduct is categorized as a mere procedural lapse, an acquittal under the relevant criminal procedure provisions is legally justified and appropriate to prevent the abuse of the court process.
- Can an acquittal be upheld when the alleged misconduct is determined to be a mere procedural lapse without personal gain?
- Is an acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 appropriate when there is no likelihood of conviction based on the available evidence?
- Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' The Accountability Court acquitted the respondent on the ground that the beneficiary of the cheques, Muhammad Ayaz Shaikh, himself subsequently deposited the amount in the account of State Life Insurance Corporation. The allegation against the respondent is that one of the cheques was countersigned by the present respondent.
2. ' Apart from these criminal proceedings, departmental enquiry was also initiated copy of which shows that at the time of countersigning, the respondent was found to be negligent but this negligence was described only a procedural lapse and he was only warned. In the inquiry it was not held that the respondent personally benefited himself in any manner.
3. ' Keeping in view this admitted position that the beneficiary of the cheques, Muhammad Ayaz Shaikh, has voluntarily returned the amount of Rs,6,00,000 said to have been fraudulently withdrawn after making additions in the cheque and the enquiry report described negligence on the part of the respondent as only a procedural lapse, there was no likelihood of any conviction on the basis of such material and the acquittal order was rightly passed under section 265-K, Cr.P.C., hence this Cr. Acquittal Appeal is dismissed.