THE STATE vs TAHER KHAN and another
This consolidated judgment disposes of eighteen acquittal appeals filed by the State against the respondents, who were earlier acquitted under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether an appeal against acquittal filed under the signature of an Assistant Advocate-General, who was neither authorized by the Provincial Government nor nominated as a Public Prosecutor, is maintainable under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Relying on established precedent, the Sindh High Court held that an appeal against acquittal preferred by an Assistant Advocate-General who lacks nomination as a Public Prosecutor and is not directed by the Provincial Government or Public Prosecutor is incompetent and not maintainable. Consequently, the court dismissed all eighteen acquittal appeals as not maintainable, laying down the principle that statutory requirements regarding the competence of the person filing an appeal against acquittal must be strictly fulfilled.
- Whether an appeal against acquittal filed by an Assistant Advocate-General who is not nominated as a Public Prosecutor is maintainable?
- Can an Assistant Advocate-General file an appeal against acquittal without a direction from the Provincial Government under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What are the jurisdictional requirements for presenting a valid appeal against acquittal on behalf of the State?
- Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 417, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. ' In the aforesaid 18 acquittal appeals Mr. Syed All Ahmed Tariq is appearing for the respondents and Mr. Dhani Bux Dayo, Advocate is appearing for A.A.-G. For the State. As a common point is involved in all these acquittal appeals, therefore, the same are taken up together and are being disposed of by this consolidated judgment.
2. ' In all these acquittal appeals the respondents/accused were acquitted under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. And against the said order of acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeals against the acquittal of the respondents.
3. ' I have heard Mr. Dhani Bux Dayo, Advocate for AA.-G. For State and Mr. Syed All Ahmed Tariq, Advocate for respondents in all these matters.
4. ' The common point involved in all these appeals is to the effect that the same have been filed by Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi who was an Assistant Advocate-General, Sindh at the relevant time and therefore, he was not authorised by the Provincial Government nor nominated as a Public Prosecutor within the meaning of section 417, Cr.P.C.
5. ' Both the learned counsel have relied on the Divisional Bench decision of this Court in the case of the State v. Muhammad Naseem Baig reported in 1989 P Cr. L J 1842 and an unreported case being Criminal Acquittal Appeal No,66 of 1992 wherein it was observed that an acquittal appeal filed under the signature of an Assistant Advocate-General who is not nominated as a Public Prosecutor, appeals filed by such a person would not be maintainable.
6. ' In the aforesaid cases the position is the same. All these appeals have been filed by Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi who was an Assistant Advocate-General at the relevant time and he was not nominated as a Public Prosecutor. It may be mentioned that an appeal against acquittal of an accused from an original or an appellate order can be preferred under subsection (10) of section 417, Cr.P.C. Provided that the Provincial Government directs the Public Prosecutor to present such an appeal to the High Court. In these appeals the Provincial Government has not nominated Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi as a Public Prosecutor to prefer these appeals nor he was directed by any Public Prosecutor to file the same. Even now nothing has been brought on the record to show that Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi was nominated as a Public Prosecutor. It would thus appear that the present appeals have not been filed by a person who is competent to present the same and are thus not maintainable. In the light of my above discussion these "18" appeals are hereby dismissed as not maintainable.