MUHAMMAD SALEEM NASAR and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside an acquittal order and remanded a case for retrial. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted correctly in acquitting the accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without recording evidence, despite allegations of misappropriation of wheat. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's order was perverse and perfunctory, as it failed to provide the prosecution a fair opportunity to produce evidence. The High Court was therefore justified in setting aside the acquittal and ordering a retrial. The key principle laid down is that a trial court cannot exercise its power to acquit an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a perfunctory manner without affording the prosecution a fair opportunity to lead evidence, especially when the record suggests a prima facie case of misappropriation. The petition was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to conclude the proceedings on a priority basis within six months.
- Can a trial court acquit an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without recording evidence?
- Is a High Court justified in remanding a case for retrial if the initial acquittal was based on a perfunctory order?
- Does the failure to provide the prosecution an opportunity to produce evidence render an acquittal order perverse?
- Section 417, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' SH. RIAZ AHMED, C.J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 18-5-2001 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court accepted the appeal preferred on behalf of State under section 417, Criminal Procedure Code, and by setting aside the judgment, dated 18-10-1986 remanded the case to the trial Court for its retrial by affording an opportunity to the prosecution to prove its case against the acquitted accused.
2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioners, we have gone through the judgment sought to be impugned as well as the order of the trial Court, by means of which, instead of framing the charge, the learned trial Judge proceeded to acquit the petitioners of the charge.
3. Perusal of the relevant record shows that witnesses were unanimous on the question of misappropriation of five trucks of wheat and the prosecution was not afforded fair opportunity to produce its evidence in order to prove the guilt of the accused-petitioners. Obviously, this was a perverse order and the learned Judge had acted in a perfunctory manner to acquit the petitioners in terms of section 249-A, Criminal Procedure Code without recording any evidence, therefore, in our view learned Single Judge was perfectly justified to set aside same and to remand the case for fresh decision on merit after recording the evidence and, therefore, no case for interference is made out. Consequently, this petition is dismissed being devoid of any merits and substance and leave to appeal declined accordingly. However, Court seized of the trial is directed to proceed with the trial on priority basis so that its stands concluded within a period of six months positively and a final report in this regard shall be submitted to the Registrar of this Court by the trial Judge concerned.