MUHAMMAD LATIF and others vs Mian AHMED ALI and others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside an acquittal order passed by a Special Judge Anti-Corruption. The petitioners had been acquitted under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding allegations of fraudulent acquisition of government property. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted correctly in acquitting the petitioners without allowing the prosecution an opportunity to present evidence. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's order of acquittal was passed in a slipshod and scanty manner, failing to provide the prosecution with a fair opportunity to adduce evidence after process had initially been issued. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the acquittal and remand the case for re-trial. The key principle laid down is that a trial court cannot summarily acquit an accused under Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without affording the prosecution a proper opportunity to lead evidence, especially where initial process has already been issued based on a preliminary inquiry.
- Can a trial court acquit an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without providing the prosecution an opportunity to lead evidence?
- Is a High Court justified in setting aside an acquittal order that was passed in a slipshod manner without proper judicial consideration?
- Does the issuance of process by a trial court following a preliminary inquiry necessitate a full trial before an acquittal can be granted under Section 249-A?
- Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 10-10-2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Criminal Appeal No,930 of 1999 filed by the respondents against the order, dated 25-3-1998 passed by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore, acquitting the petitioners under section 249-A, Cr.P.C., was allowed directing the learned trial Judge to take serious note and decide the case on priority basis by giving opportunity to the prosecution to prove its case.
2. ' The facts briefly narrated for the disposal of this petition are that the respondents filed a complaint against the petitioners that they in a forged and fraudulent manner grabbed Government properties valuing crores of rupees with the connivance of the officials of Lahore Development Authority. The learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore, secured a report and after preliminary enquiry issued process against the petitioners. Some of the petitioners then moved an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. For quashment of proceedings against them and the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore, vide his order, dated 25-3-1998 accepted the same and acquitted the petitioners. The respondents filed Criminal Appeal No,930 of 1999 against the above order which has been accepted by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court through the impugned judgment. Hence this petition.
3. ' We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record with their assistance. We have noticed that the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore, initially issued process against the petitioners after going through enquiry report as well as preliminary evidence brought on record. However, subsequently the learned Special Judge on an application moved under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. By some of the petitioners quashed the proceedings against them without affording an opportunity to the prosecution to adduce evidence. The order of the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore, in acquitting the petitioners is scanty and has been passed in a slipshod manner without providing opportunity to the prosecution to lead evidence. We do not want to dilate upon the issues raised by the learned counsel for the parties respecting the merits of the case as this exercise would have adverse effect on the case of either party. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that no illegality has been committed by the learned Judge of the High Court in accepting the appeal of the respondents and remanding the case to the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore, for re-trial of the case against the petitioners.
4. ' Resultantly, taking note of all the circumstances of this case the instant petition being without any force is dismissed and leave declined.
Cited by 3 cases
- The State (Chairman National Accountability Bureau) vs Muhammad 2020 SHC 346
- State Versus MUHAMMAD SARDAR KHAN 2022 YLRN 171
- MEHBOOB RAHMATULLAH vs THE STATE 2006 YLR 2102