Professor Dr. Hakim Ali Abro vs Faqeer Bakhat Hussain & Others
This matter concerns a criminal acquittal appeal filed by the appellant against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, which acquitted the private respondents of an offence under Section 500 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a direct complaint filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether an appeal against an acquittal in a private complaint case is maintainable without first obtaining special leave to appeal from the High Court. The Court held that the appeal was incompetent because the appellant failed to obtain the mandatory special leave to appeal as prescribed by law. The Court reasoned that under the relevant statutory framework, an acquittal order resulting from a private complaint can only be challenged after obtaining special leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the requirement for special leave to appeal under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is a mandatory procedural prerequisite for challenging an acquittal in a private complaint case, and failure to obtain such leave renders the appeal incompetent.
- Is an appeal against an acquittal in a private complaint case maintainable without obtaining special leave to appeal?
- Can a trial court record an acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without recording evidence?
- Does the failure to obtain special leave to appeal under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render a criminal acquittal appeal incompetent?
- Section 200, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 500, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 417(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The facts in brief necessary for dispos al of instant criminal acquittal appeal are that the appellant filed a direct complaint u/s.200 Cr.PC for prosecution of the private respondents for offence punishable u/s. 500 PPC. It was brought on record. Subsequently , on filing of an applicatio n u/s.265-K Cr.PC, the private respondents were acquitted of the said offence by learned 7 Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana vide order dated 06.02.2016, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court by preferring the instant criminal acquittal appeal.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Court has recorded acquittal of the private respondents without recording evidence; therefore, such acquittal is liable to be set aside.
3. Learned A.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the private respondents have sought for dismissal of the instant criminal acquittal appeal by contending that it has been filed by the appellant without leave of the Court.
4. In rebuttal to above, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that leave of the Court is not absolute, as has been held by this Court vide order dated 12.01.2019, passed in Crl. Acquittal Appeal No.S-49/2012.
5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
6. The acquittal of accused could be recorded at any stage when the Court considers that there is no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence; therefore, it would be hard to say that acquittal of the accused without recording evidence is illegal. Admittedly , the acquittal of the private respondents has been recorded on a direct complaint, which could only be impugned after obtaining special leave to appeal, as is prescribed under Sub Section (2) to Section 417 Cr.PC. No such leave has been obtained by the appellant prior to filing of the instant criminal acquittal appeal despite office objection; therefore such omission has made the instant criminal acquittal appeal to be incompetent.
7. The order which is referred by learned counsel for the appellant is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In that case, the memo of appeal was treated as an application for leave to appea l. In the instant matter , no suchth treatment has been made in favour of the appellant and he despite office objection has not obtained the special leave to prefer the acquittal appeal, perhaps knowingly .
8. In view of above, the instant criminal acquittal appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly