2002 SCMR 609

STATE OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN through Deputy Attorney-

Share on WhatsApp ⭐ Prefer in Google

Citation2002 SCMR 609

CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan

Case No.Criminal Petition No,35-K of 2000 Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No,532 of

Date2001-10-03

Judge(s)Nazim Hussain Si4dlqui and Abdul Hameed Dogar

Authored byNazim Hussain Siddiqui

ResultLeave granted

AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a criminal case registered regarding alleged malpractices and criminal breach of trust causing a loss of Rs. 28 million to Pakistan Steel Mills, Karachi, under sections 409, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The accused moved an application for acquittal under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which was rejected by the trial court as the case was fixed for the statement of the accused. Subsequently, the respondent filed an application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the High Court for quashment of the trial court's order, and the High Court quashed the proceedings against the respondent. The State sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court was justified in exercising jurisdiction under section 561-A to quash proceedings when the matter was at the stage of recording the accused's statement and whether partial quashment ignoring evidence was proper. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions and suspended the operation of the impugned order.

Questions settled in this judgment

Whether the High Court was justified to exercise jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and quash proceedings against the respondent when the matter was fixed for recording the statement of the accused?
Whether partial quashment of criminal proceedings was justified under the circumstances?
Whether the High Court totally ignored the evidence brought on record against the respondent?

Laws & provisions referred

Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898

quashment of proceedingsinherent powerscriminal breach of trustacquittal at belated stageleave to appeal

ORDER

' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.---On 18-11-1996, F.I.R. Of this case was registered on the report of Inspector Hussain Ali Baloch. According to the prosecution, an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Director, F.1. A., regarding malpractices in Pakistan Steel Mills, Karachi towards the purchase of level indicators during the year 1966, wherein it was revealed that the accused persons of this case in active collusion of Zulfiqar respondent (of M/s. Universal Industrial Corporation) committed the act of criminal breach of trust and caused loss to the tune of Rs,28 million to the State.

Therefore, the case was registered under sections 409/109/34, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Act II of 1947. The respondent moved an application before Special Judge (Central) II, Karachi under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. For acquittal; which was rejected by trial Court with the following observations:-- ' "It is also relevant to point out that this application has been moved and argued at very belated stage only when learned prosecutor has given up all the remaining witnesses and that case was fixed for statement of the accused. As such the clear picture would emerge only after the accused record their statements and also lead their defence. As such, all the points raised by the learned defence counsel shall be minutely examined after the needful is done. For the aforesaid reasons the application is rejected."

2. The respondent then filed an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. For quashment of the order passed by trial Court and High Court quashed the proceedings only against the respondent.

3. Inter alia, leave to appeal is granted to consider the following:-

(a) Whether, under the circumstances, High Court was justified to exercise jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. And quash the proceedings against the respondent, when the matter was fixed for recording the statement of respondent/accused?

(b) Whether the partial quashment was justified?

4. The operation of impugned order is suspended. The matter be fixed for regular hearing at an early date.