MAHMOOD AKHTAR vs THE MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. And Another
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil suit for damages for malicious prosecution initiated by the petitioner against the respondents, following the petitioner's earlier acquittal in a criminal case. The petitioner, having failed in his suit for malicious prosecution, sought leave to appeal against the High Court's decision. The core legal question was whether an acquittal based on the extension of the benefit of doubt in a criminal case provides a sufficient legal basis to sustain a subsequent claim for malicious prosecution. The Supreme Court, relying on established precedents including Sher Hassan v. The State, Sadafuzzaman v. The State, and Government of the Punjab v. Slamat Ali Khan, held that an acquittal granted due to the benefit of doubt does not automatically imply that the prosecution witnesses acted with malice or committed perjury. Consequently, the Court found no justification for granting leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the mere extension of the benefit of doubt to an accused in a criminal trial is insufficient to establish the element of malice required to succeed in a subsequent civil action for malicious prosecution.
- Does an acquittal based on the benefit of doubt constitute sufficient grounds for a claim of malicious prosecution?
- Can prosecution witnesses be held to have perjured themselves solely because an accused was acquitted due to the benefit of doubt?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.--- In this petition for leave to appeal by an acquitted accused who has faa;led in his subsequent case for malicious prosecution against the respondents' side, it is admitted by his learned counsel that the acquittal was by extension of benefit of doubt. The basic judgment on the scope of acquittal or otherwise of extension of benefit of doubt, is Sher Hassan v. The State PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 480. The same has been relied upon and the same view recorded in different situations, in some s recent judgments of this Court as well. They are Sadafuzzaman v. The State (1990 SCM R 1277), Feroze Khan v. Fateh Khan (1991 SCM R 2220) and Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Health Department, Lahore v. Slamat Ali Khan PLD 1991 SC 699.
2. In this case in addition to the reasons which prevailed with the High Court and are mentioned in the impugned judgment including ofte that the prosecution witnesses had no malice against the petitioner; it has to be held that under the principles discussed in the aforenoticed judgments they--the prosecution witnesses, could not be held to have perjured themselves simply because the petitioner has been extended benefit of doubt..
3. That being so, no justification has been made out for grant of leave to appeal. The same, accordingly, is refused.
4. M.B.A./M-1603/S
Cited by 5 cases
- Alam Din vs Muhammad Hussain and 2 others 2012 C.L.R. 656
- Master ABBAS KHAN vs Sub. SIKANDAR KHAN 2011 CLD 1794
- ALAM DIN Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN 2012 PLD 279
- Master ABBAS KHAN Versus Subedar SIKANDAR KHAN 2012 MLD 1
- Mian KHURRAM SAEED Versus MUHAMMAD KHALID 2022 MLD 1