ADAMJI Versus MUHAMMAD FAROOQ

ORDER

SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, J.--- Appellant Adamji, supplied some chipboard to respondent No.1/accused against which accused issued five cheques those were returned dishonoured as bank account of accused was found closed. The case of appellant is that fifteen other cheques were also bounced and separate FIRs bearing Nos.74/2011 and 393/2010 with Police Station Sharifabad under sections 489 -F and 420 were lodged. The trial court vide impugned judgment dated 23.5.2013 and 02.3.2013 acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgments, the appellant has preferred the captioned appeals and prayed to set aside the impugned judgments.

2. Arguments heard. Record perused.

3. Appellant present in person admitted the business relations with accused. It is also an admitted position that there was business transaction of chipboard in between appellant and accused. Against said chipboard accused issued cheques as security. Record transpires that Civil Suit No.866/2010 was also filed regarding said transaction, which was decreed. In such view of the matter both trial courts observed that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature and pertains to the settlement of account.

4. Perusal of record shows that appellant has miserably failed to establish extra ordinary reasons and circumstances, whereby the acquittal judgment recorded by the trial court may be interfered with by this court. This is a case of fulfillment of contractual obligations of business and not issuance of cheques dishonestly, therefore, trial court has correctly reached at the conclusion that ingredients of section 489-F, P.P.C. are missing in the case.

5. It is not out of context to make here necessary clarification that an appeal against acquittal has distinctive features and the approach to deal with the appeal against conviction is distinguishable from the appeal against the acquittal because presumption of double innocence is attached in the latter case. Order of acquittal can only be interfered with, if it is found on its face to be capricious, perverse, arbitrary in nature or based on misreading, non-appraisal of evidence or is artificial, arbitrary and lead to gross miscarriage of justice. Mere disregard of technicalities in a criminal trial without resulting injustice is not enough for interference. Suffice is to say that an order/judgment of acquittal gives rise to strong presumption of innocence rather double presumption of innocence is attached to such an order. While examining the facts in the order of acquittal, substantial weight should be given to the findings of the lower Courts, whereby accused were exonerated from the commission of crime as held by the apex Court in the case of Muhammad Ijaz Ahmad v. Fahim Afzal (1998 SCMR 1281) and Jehangir v. Aminullah and others (2010 SCMR 491). It is settled principle of law as held in the plethora of case law that acquittal would be unquestionable when it could not be said that acquittal was either perverse or that acquittal judgment was improper or incorrect as it is settled that whenever there is doubt about guilt of accused, its benefit must go to him and Court would never come to the rescue of prosecution to fill-up the lacuna appearing in evidence of prosecution case as it would be against established principles of dispensation of criminal justice.

6. There is hardly any improbability or infirmity in the impugned judgments of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court, which being based on sound and cogent reasons do not warrant any interference by this Court and is accordingly maintained.

7. By a short order announced on 25.01.2016 both these appeals were dismissed and above are the reasons for the said short order.

MH/A-44/Sindh Appeals dismissed.