TANVEER AHMED TAHIR S/O ZAFARYAB AHMED TAHIR (Appellant) VS THE STATE & OTHERS (Respondent)

r! ll l:' 'ltc1-'Ul 'f--u' \!^'J

CERTIFICATE OF THE COU RT IN REGARD TO REPORTING

(-- r. At.. ,l n, ,3t, lts, ^/^ a Il'*

f A NvLL q. h.'i\ttt\ l'. '-r'lE STA'7 e

HIGH COURT OF SINDH

Composition of Bench: sJ./D. B

Mr. Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha, Mr ll-..r-t-- 7,,tfry, ^tl A.*-X" Date(s) of Hearing: tl-- lo- l( !}'?-j- 16.' i\

Decide on: oB - ll _2019

(a)Judgment approved for reporting Yes t'?,1

U-

CERTIF ICATE

Certified that the judgment*/order is based upon or enunciates a principle of law */ decides a question of law which is of first impression / dlstinguishes / over' rules / reverses / explains a previous decision.

* Strike out whichever is not applicable

NOTE: (i) This slip is only to be used when some action is to be taken.

(ii)lf the slip is used, the Reader must attach it to the top of the first page of the judgment.

(iii)Reader must ask the ]ud8e writing the Judgment whether the ludgment is approved for reporting.

(iv ) Those directions which are not to be used should be deleted

/t;

l\ I lllr lll(ill ('Ot,lt ( )l slNt)t r,\tt(.,\ R.,\('ll I l r . /),,

,\1lDr'rri \1, ol lt) l.\ 3\ llrtrr rei \i rrcd lrlrlr \()| r)1',/.1t.rf\J[) \i|:r.rl lrrll]r \lL qliD, ,-lrrli rlr, tL:.r .\l(il) I,,ri.li, ( l)( ) \r 'r! k:rr'.ruir,. ll ,J il N,) ]\ 1 \orlsji \tr!' I i l' ,r.. li I rL,' r.r,,r, i)l l,\ hrr.,, ,i 1.,s.. ,t, r(rrliri,,.1 i,l I ,. rrir: .: K.,i... ,\ppcllanl

lir( \r lrir

\.11i(,rlrl \, L , ,l i il il: i l i t\ I1,,r.-.tu r

tltrLrr lh its ( lrli|nr.rn ,\irir,rL \r Irrrr' !\lrriirbld

\,r,, . fr.l \,..,. ..,i,ii1,, ir:r.,' rjlr,,, li ll\ r; r!! 1' (,-.,1.- I\,r,rrll, l'll( : l3irililirisr 1., I r.

l ),,rt,ir l).r',,L,.il,L,rr l(L,,i.r l\:r1.. itr ( lr, tL rtr ,-'rr1- h:,r'.rr lt l l(..\l)r)lt(lents

.\rrPI \r. r ulr. rr-\!-(*r_!.!lx lrlf l ur.: \ \ I l()\ \r \('( {)t \'t ilt I I r ()l )r\ \\(.'L 1999 It,. .rrrtrLil.iu i,.r ,, .rrl,r,, r-ti r,t r.r.''r,riirlitil \rith lh,.' ilTlIrulllrri ,,r,lr,rri; Li]]t(\i I - ltrlS Liri .,J' l',-r'/i rr.c \,r i I rri ll)/r.r has heL,rr \rrr\,!l!,1 , ;t ,t t(iar \fftr(,, lli r.,..r{i \\r{1i sir.r.rl \oi..l titid ,i (ri tlt( 'rii,'|.r \.lr.rlrii. il tir,- ,\ll! r . irlri.r,l(lf(i \!ll ilrt. \rlrorrlj .1(.ountahil,t\ i )rLli:r:r tr,-. .),.jr)..1' \,r,,ir rlt(. t,ti-.Lij,Ltil ,\..,,r \lri|-1i llrlrjr. ltrtd senterre..

rn sirll(r Il I li)r irr 1,.. ) ir|r1,,,,, r, 'r r. ,,i r(\ 1.50.1)r).r)0(),- ii cris., rrli,, llrr-' tit. ,r i .rirr \.r rJti l,,i)r, ,.rlr ,i,,ir., (\ R-

J oo

iil alf....fd,.u

7:i I I' JII-THE H IG B=C=Q UAI:gE IN.D:H AT= trA.LAEE!

Criminal Accountability Acquittal Appeal No k8 or 2ors q11 The State Through ils Chairman National Accountability Bureau G-5/2 Atta Turk Avenue lslamabad... ... .... Appellant

V/s

Syed Fida Hussain Shah S/o Syed lbrar Hussain Shah The then AIGP Finance, CPO. Sindh, Karachi R-/o Village Khair Muhammad Arija, Tehsil Bakrani, Drstflct Larkana Respondent

a R Ur4UgAL. A.q.c=O U N.rA.B r Ll TY Ae qu|TTAL A-PIEA..L U=lS -3. 2- Qi F. N AO' 1 -9-9:9

Being partly aggrieved witlr and dissatisfied by the Judgment dated :'r July 2018 passed by learned Judge Accountability Court No. lll Sindh a: <arachi in Reference No. 54/2016, whereby accused Tanveer Ahmed -ar.r rES convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 'a ,e3rs and fine of Rs 25.000,000, in case of non-payment of fine ,=.Seo shall suffer R.l for'1x years more, the convicted accused was in to serve 'J: =a custody and he was remanded back to the Central Prjson f-::ne sentence. Respondenl Syed Fida Hussain Shah was acquitted U/S 26iH(i) Cr PC. The Appellant prefers this Appeal against the said -.6ginent and prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call the aiD et the Reference No.54/2016 (Siate Vis Tanveer Ahmed Tahir & :r-€fter: f.om the Accountability Court No. lll, Karachi and after examining

3c I

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACI{I

(ConstitLttional Jurisdiction)

Constitlrtional Petition No. D (,j ,l\ of 2018 o4 .r'6 /8 i..-1 \ Tanr,,eer Ahmed Tahir rilrti..., !\il1,i son of Zafaryat Ahmed Tahir, muslim, adutt, the then AIGP Logistic, CPO Sindh Karachi, R/o H.No.S-4, Sunsel. Street 8, Phase-ll, Extension, DHA Karachi presently confined at Cen tral Jail, Karachi....... Petitioner 'lY

Versus

l National Accountability Bureau, Through its Chairman Having its office at NAB Headquarters. Ataturk Avenue, lslamabad The Director 0encrai, National Accountability Bureau (Sindh). having its office at PRCS Bt ilding' 1,97 15, Dr. Daudpota Road, Cantonment, Kara(:hi

ai Accountability Court No. Ill, Karachi. Sindh................... Respondents

PETITI ON UND]TR A RTICLE 199 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF THE ISLAM IC REPUBLIC

OF PAKISTAN

--n- lf The petitioner above named humbly seeks suspension of the sentence awarded ro him vide Judgment dated 31-7 2018 passed b] Accountability Court No.lll, Sindh, at Karachi viz. respondent No.3, pending adjudication of Criminai Accountabilit]- Appeal No 34 of 2018 filed by the petitioncr

Nii il Al'V L.\

1qi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACT]I

Criminrl A(countability Appeal No.34 of 2018 C.l'. No.D-6991 of 201It.

ohdI itttul liirri,n It /rarr .,1t/r,r itlr. lustict: Z

Al)pcl1.ut/ I'etrtioner Ianveer Ahmcd lahir 5/o Zalaryab Ahme(i lahir through farooq IJ. Naek, Riaz Ahnred t'hulpok) an(l Ljsman 5haikh, A(l!o(atcs.

ResFor!Llcnt/state (NAIi) Mr. Khahd Mchmood An'an and lvrr. It L) Kalhoro, Spt'cial Prosecuk-rs NAB-

Criminal A(countal,ility Acq. Appenl No..l9 of 201S

Appellnnt/the SLrhl Nlr. Khalirl lr{chmoocl r\,'r'an arrtl ivlr. R.D.K.rlhoro, Spt'cial Prosecutors NAB

I{esfondcnt svetl Fitta Hussain Shah 5'ro' si'ed Itrrar Hussirin Shah through Mr.Shahzeb Nlasucl

Date of hearing: 15.10 2019 and a3.10.2019

Date ()l iudgment 08.11.2019.

IUDCMENT

MOHAMMAD KARIM KHAN AGHA, I'- The aPPellant Tanveer Ahmed I'ahir S/o. Zafarvab Altmed Tahir w.rs convicted bl tht Accountabilit) Clourt No.lll, Sindh Karachi, by Iudgment dateli 31 07.201lt lor aats of corruption unLlcr 5. 9 oi tht National ,\ccouitabilitv flurcau Ordinancc 1999 (NAO) and has sent('n(cd to suffcr R.l. for l0 ytars ancl finc of Rs.2,50,00,000/ - and ill case of non-Payme,1t ol fin!', the dfBlllalrt lvas to undergo Rl. for one more year (the impugne'l iud8ment)' The accuseJ lanveer Ahrneci Iahir shall foth\r'ith (easc tl] liold I'ubhc offi'e. if an\', held tr! ltim and further ht' shall stand disqualilil'd ftrr 'r perit' of 10 vears k, be reckoned ft()rn lhc- date he is releascJ after servinB the-

/L

lrl 3(: j

sentence ior sceking or from bcing electcd, chosen, aPpointcd or nominated as a nlember or rcpresentative of anv public bocl1, or anv statutory or local authotitv oa in seryice of Pakistan or ot any Province so alscr shall not be allotted to apply for or be grantcd or allowed anl financial facilities in the form of any loan or advanccs frorn anv bank or finan.ial lnstitution in the public sector furr a peri()d of lll ve.rrs irorn tht: date o[ conviction. flowever, accuscd is entitlcd fol thc benefit of Section 382(8) (rr Ir.C.

2.llence the appelhnt has liled this aPPcal aBainst c('nvitli()n

3.the National Accountabiiify Bureau (NAB) has also iile'r'l an appeal against acquittal in lespect ot the imPugned iudliment which acquitted the Respondent Iida Hussain Shah. By this conlm()n .,ud8ment lvrr intend to d;spose of both of the appeals.

4.'lhe brief fa.ts o[ the (ase as narratcd in the Relerence are tlut olr re(eiPt o[ a complaint an inquir] t{as authorizeJ by DC NAB against police oificers/oificials during the course oi which it was established that an amount oi L.50 Million had been $'ithdrawn illegally by the officers/oflicials of Sindh Police through fake bills, hen.e an invcstiSatiotl \^'as authorizcd by NAB against Tanveer Ahmed Tnhir, the then AICI' t-otiistx s, syud Fida Hussain Shah, the then AICP Financt', officers/oificials of Sinrth Police and others It rvas found tl1at Finance Department Covernment o[ Sindh released advice for funds amountinB h' Rs.soMillion in respcrt of Petrol Oil and Lubricarrts (POl-) charges tl farour o[ Sindlr I'()lic( IJePartmL'nt lor extra orelin.rry dutics and s({urit}' arr'angemenls durlng Nluharrarn rl u tie's

5.That out of the said amount of Rs.50 Million an amount of Rs'30 Million was drarvn in the name of M/s standard Service Statit)n havinll dealership of Pakistan State Oil (I5O) but the bills of M/s' Standard Servicc Stdtion do nc,t mention arry address or location on the face of bills and there is only one outlct bv the namc of M/s. Standard Service Statio'r in the l'rovince of Sindh including Karachi whirh is sittritcd ai l'lot No'17'

trl i0'1

A, Rlock-VI, PECHS Shahrah"e-Faisal Karachi whcrcas de.rlt'rship of the' said station is in the name ol illoharram Ali Shaikh S/o. tlaii Gohram. It u'as also found that neilher nlr\ P()[- iteln was rssuetl t() Sindh I)(rice Department dudng the year 2(114 nor any lrill was issuei.l for dnv Pavment to the sindh Police Dcpartment frorn the said Stnndard Servicc Station situatucl at Shahrah-€-F-aisal. Karachi and the cheque No 188tt928 dnted 16.12.2014 for an am()unt of Rs.30 Million issued in thc name of vend or/ contractor SrandarLl Servi.c Station was prc:i:esst-tl in National Bank of Pakistan, Nadir ilouse Branch, Karachi u'hich has bcen credited in ihe account of DDO of thc lnsPLrto, (jenerai of Police Karachi havirrg account No.0o11959 on 19.12.201{ despit!'the lact that said cheque was issucd in tl'ie name ol NI/s. Stanr,tard Service Stahur lt lvas furtht'r kruud that in.lddition to withdrar4.al ('f the above said Rs 30 Million, an am()uit of lts.20 ]Vlitlion has bcen withdrnwn in thc narne oi M/s. Quick Frlling Station, Ilace Course Road Sukkur having dealcrshiP ol Shell Pakistan, but one Abdul Wahid Khoso S/o. Hafiz Shafi Muhamtnad who is thc ou ner of M/s Quick FillingStation and CNG Station, Racc Course Roael Sr.rkkur dcnied issuing bills to Poiicc DePartmenl and also tienierl re.ciPt oi any paymcnt from Police DePartment and an Account No'10(D014 in lhL- Iramc of M/s. Quick Filling Stahon & CNG Station, Race Coursc Road, sukkur is bcing, maintilincd bv Nfuhammad Rafiq S/o. Qurbarr,\lr and thc PavDlent of alrove said Rs.2() N{illion Pertaining to Sindh Police I'OL bills h.rs bt'err crcditLd into the abovc said account. It was also foull(l tlrat rcverse sitlt of bills of M/s. t)uick Fitlinll Station & CNC Station, Race Course Roati, Sukkur bears the certification ot Police ofli(ial/ Nl'f()s of Larkana and Sukkur Region regarding exPenses of I'OL, horvevcr, these Police olficials stated that bills of lvl/s. Quick IillinS Station Sukkur Passcd for Pa) tnent were r(rt issucd froln thcir ofiiccs and no fucl/FOL rvas obtaine4l by their offices frrrm the above said servicc station. The chequ!'No 1890961 dated 05.12.201.1 lor l{s.20 Million issued bv AC Sinrlh offict lor InsPector General LrI Police Sindh l)ePartmcnt in falour o[ Qtrick Filling Station & CNG Stahcrrr Sukkur rvas creditetl into th('trank .lc.ount (){ Nluhamnracl I{afit], Ilead Constable, SPecial Btanch Sukkur lvho had wiihdrawn cash through cheque signed b) hifl dest ite the iact that ht, \a'as nt)t lhe olvner t

lll

3ot

of saicl filling litation, u,ho subsequently admitted his guilt by entering into a plca bnrgajn h'ith NAts t{'heleby he rcturned ttle ill Botttn gain and was deomeri convir'ted of the offense Lrnder S.25 (b) NAO

6.It is alleged by the prosecution that accused 'I arN eer Ahmed Iahir the then AIGP [-ogistics and DI)O Accounts Branch, CI'O, Sindh, Karachi processed 5 bills lor Rs.l0 Million cach on a..()unt of PLll cxPens('s and sent to A.countant Gerreral Sindh, Karachi for relcasc ol payment in the nanle ol NI/s. Standarel Servicc st.rtion anll M/s Qui.k fillint] Slation, Race (i)urse Road, Sukkur and he verifierl said bills lvhereas atlached i[voices with these bills were fourrcl to be fake an,'l no iuel was obtained from the said filling stations and as Per siS,natuae sPecimen card and as per orr1erdatctl15.7.201,l in resPect ofaccount bcaring No.0011959 ht was authorized to exercise the poher ol Drawing and Disbursing ()lliccr o[ thc Central I'di.e Oliice, Karachi lt is also allcged that ac.used s-vt'r"l Fida llussain thc then AIGP Finance, CPC), Sindh Karaclri strughl a general apProval or note sheet trom the ICP Sindh to incur thc POL anr.l other expenses, he harJ specificallv issue(l finan.ial s.tnctioir orders in the name of M/s. Quick Filling Station, SukkLrr ancl M/s. Standard seryicc Stati()n. As such, k)th accusecl namcd atxrve ir, conniv.rnce with cach <rther have embezzled an aDt()unt of Rs.50 Million thnrgh fake invoiccs on accourlt of IJ()l expenses and caused ioss to th. National Ex(htquer anll have comnlitted an ofltrnce of corruFtion and corrupt Practices, hence this

7.To prove its case the Prosecution examincd 26 t'itnesses and exhibited numerous documents and thereafter closed it5 side Statements of (he accused r*:re recorded u,/s 342 Cr'PC. Ihe accused persons claimed rhat the)' had acted in accortlance h'ith the la\^, that there ha''l tEen no wlong doing on their Part anJ they llad been falsely imPlicaled with the main culprit being IGP sindh and other Police officials who werc lct olf the hook by the lO duc to his lack oi understanding trf hr:u' police iina[cial matters are dealt B'itlr and for other cttranc()us rt'asons br:st

ljl

3ro A

knolvn to himself. Neither of the accused calleLl anv hitnesscs in suPPort of their r.lefensc.

8.the facts of the case as rvell as evirlence producecl befote the trial couit find an elabo.ate mention in thc imPugned iud8ment dated 31.7. 18 passed b)'the trial court and, lherefore, th('same may not bc reproduced here so as to avoid dupiication and unnecessary rcPetition.

9.l.earned coL;nsel for appellant Tanvir Ahmed contended tlut the eviderrce on recorcl had not proved that tlre aPPeliant hatl engageti in .rnt corruptioU it may be that Muhammad Raliq, Flead Constable had entered into a plea barllain but this was because the ill gottcn gains had bt:cn found in his personal bank ac(ount so his involl'eDrcnt in the Qu(k $en,;ce station illegal Payments was undeniable howrvcr the aPPcllant had no link to Muhammad Rafiq and Quick service station; that he was not responsible Ior rcquesting the funds as this should havc come lrom thc motor transport division which hc had nothing to do with antl as strch he had nothing to do with any invoices reaeived lrom potrol statiolls, (ir preparing them and it was not his job to verif)' such inv()iccsj that tlre sanction of the funds had been given by the IGI'; that financial nPProval had bt-.err given by AIGI']Finance and his role was simplv in disbursing the funds as DD() on the ir$tructions of thc ICP and AICP Financei th'rt no one had alleljed that lte had t.tken anl monel'let aldre anv monev had been recovered froin him, that since the ftlnds that lvere meant to te Paid to Standard service statioo had been Paid into tlre Poiice setret service fund no loss had been cdused to the Govcrnment of Sindh, that there u'as no mens rea on his Pa and ftrr one or all the above reasons h(' was entitle.l to be acquitted of thc chargc by being Sivcn the benefit of thtl 'I he S(ate and dcjubt . In stpport of his contentions hc placcd reliarrcc on others v. M- ldrees Ghauri and otherc (2008 SCMR 1118), Malik Munir Hussain and others v. National Accountability Bureau and others (2016 P. Cr.L.l 1896), Wahid Bakhsh Baloch v.'Ihe State (201'l SC-MR 9t{5), National Aacountability Bureau through Prosecutor Ceneral A(.ountability, lslamabad v. Khalid Ahmad Khan Khanal (2013 PLt) t

l(, I

3sl 849), I{ehnran and othcrs V. The State (PI.D l96t{ talrore {6'l) anrl Nasima Bibi v. The State (PLJ 2001i 5h C. (AlK) l)

10.()n the other hand, Khalid Mehmooti Arlan and ll.l) Kalhoro, Special lrrosecutors r-\AB fulll stlpPorted the imPu8nc(l iudgment against appellant lanvir Ahmed and.ontended that thc Prosecution had provctl it case against h;m bgvond a reasonable dor-rbt 'l'lrt't contcn!l('d in particular that the inloices !{ere fakc, that the inv(,ic.s hdd bcen illegalll approvcrl by the appellant and that tht aPPellant ha(l Pers()nall)'llaint,(i irom the scam by paying the funds into the secret account of the Police arlcl then rvithdrawing the samc ior his bcnetit and as such his aPPeal should be dismissed. ln suPport of their contentions they- piaced relianct' on l-arhat Azeem v. Waheed llasul and olhers (l'LD 20OJ SuPremc Court 18), Ch. Muhammad Riasit and anothe! v. Muhammad Asghar and another (Pl-D 2010 Suprcme Court (A.J&K) 29), Malik Din v. Chairman National A(countability Bureau and other (2019 SC-l''lR :172), Ali Ahmed Batoch and others v.'Ihe State through NAB Authoritics nnd others (2013 I'.Cr.l-f 1(189), Khadim Huseain Kutrio and anothet v, The State and otherc (2019 PCr.tJ 1001) and firdous Khan v. The State (2015 P. Cr.Ll r;97).

't1. we have hearcl the arguments of the learned counsel for the Partics, Borre through thc entire evidcncc rvhich has been read out bv the appellant, the impugned iudgment w'ith their able assistancc and have- considered the relevant law.

12.At the outset we h'ould like to Poht out that !,e are both surPrised and dis.rpponrted that NAB is still utilizing iLs Ptt'(ious resources in pursuing cases of a relatively lesser value NAB bcing tlre Premicr Anti Cr'rrruption llodv in Pakistan is expecterl to lursue me8a corruPtion 'ascs rvhich have causcd loss of billions of ruPees and sh('uld not tie uP its valuable anci limited lesources in cases hhich do not involve mega corruption. In this resPect relian.e is Piaced on Amiad Hussain V NAB (2017 YLR I) h'here according to NAB'S ou'n SOI'it would not Proceed 'w'ith cases lvhich caused loss of less than RS 10 crore Even noh' thc

t,l '?tB

Covernment has proposed a bill secking to incrcase the minimuI}l amount to rot lcss than RS50 crore

13.ln our view the pr()secution has not bcen ible to Prove its ..-lso bcyorrcl a rcasonable doubl aganrst Ianvir Ahmell tor the followirg

(a)that there appears to be a lack of specificitv in both the reference and the Charge which is a p(,tential violation of 5.221 Cr.PC in that the appcllant is charged under 5.9 (a) NAO. S.9(a) NAcf contains 12 sub-se.tions being (i) to (xii) and in all fairness k) the ac.Lrsed thc p.rrticular sub se(tions to which the aPPellanl had to nrount , delense against ought to llave been nanred in toth the re{crcnce ancl tl,e charge s() thnt hc could properly prepare his tlelense Although ill our view this dcfect ir the charg(' is not b! itsell sufiicient to.rcquit the aPPellant il is a iactor which we must tlivc sorrre wcighl to as it is a settied Prin.iPle undei criminal law that the ac.used should knorv the specific chltrge agajnst hlnr so that hc (an adequalely preparc his defense. In our \'iela- It aPPears that the relere ce and thargc against the appellant is under S.9 (a) (\'i) NAO which concerns a misuse of authority/ failurc t() exercise authoritv which rvill lead to beneliting himself or somc other Person. Such vievr is fortified by typed P.26 of the imPugned judtment $/here the learned trial iudge refers to an illegal erercise of authority which failed to protect government funds. Uven other!\'isc thcrc is no evidence of embezzlenrent or nlisaPProPriation on his Part.

(b)N() pr()secutxrn !vitness has given anl cYidcnce against him.

(c)That it has not been proven that he was the {)riginator of tht' requests lor pa),mcnt (rn account c)f I2OL all.l tl).' IO carried oot n() ir)vestlSation to lind out ra'ho initiate(l such requests Suah request should have come tl-Eough the ,notor anLl transPort I)ivision over whicl) the appellant had no cornm.lnd arl(i control No cr'idcnce has also come on recorcl that he hircl any influence over the mok)r transport division ff had anything to d(,lvith thent.

(d)From the evideflce it aPPears that the aPPeliant had a limited role in frocessing fic bills (certainly lt'ss than AICI'Fin.rnce and the Finance D('partment !a'ho rvas a(quitted by the trial court) and was more akin tL, a Post box whilst the Primary rcsPonsil)ilit! rcstecl u.ith other persons as set oul bclolv:

(i)PW-] Mr. Zafar lq[ral in his cross exarnination has slated tltnt NL)tor l ransport Wing bills arc Pissed aitrr appror'.rl by lGP. These bills along with colcring letters of SSP'S alc sent k) Finance Wing of IGI', ra'h(i PrcPar(' note sheet [or sa,ttl()n from ICP and note sheet i$ allvnYs prepared alter complete descriPtion ()f bills and no bills

INI

nrr pastrd lyithout thc aPPr(lval of lCl'altt sillniturf I)i IC;P f innrce

(i,) I'W-2 Mr. Qamar Raza in his.r()ss examination stateLl that there is no Niotor TransPort wintt LrnLler thc command of AIG l,ogistics. Du€ to this reason Logisti( Bran(h do not prepare arly POL bills. Ilverl [ronth PC)L bills arc re<eivcd in the olfice ot AIC t-t)gistics fr('m the office ()f AIC Finance along w;th sanction ()rJcr l()r pa)'me,rt. W1] onl)- anncx Form TII 30 ('r1 it. I hc PC)L bills of main M I Sindh is r€eiveLl everv month through A,G tinance olite 6l6ng with san.titllt ordcrt thtrcin authorizint, expenLliture kr be inc!rrre(l .1nrl Jisburscnrcnt to concerned lendor lrom Ct{) budllet. This is routine reay of working Prior to the aPPellant's Posling and after my posting and is still being .ontinued. Afte! issuance of Financial Sanction Orders by the IGP, duly authenticated by AIG Finance, bills were prepared by the ac.ounts branch of CPO after due process and s(rutiny on Form TR 30.

(iii)The vera(ity and sanctity of POL bills being submittcd Iies with unit generating those bills and AI(; l'inan(€ office issuing sanction ol exPenditu.e tot disburgement. lt is pertinent to mention that no bills are passed by AG Sindh until and unless san.tion is issued by AIC Finance'

(i.,) lhe bills nr question lrcrc rcceivc(l irom AIC Finan(e oifice alon8 with Sanction Ordcrs ll-V 32-17li1218 ctated 28/11/2014, 342713428 dated 1/12/2t)14 and vidc Snnction No IJ-V 1630 dated 9/12/2014 ()i Its.'10 tllilli()t1 each. The same routine Procedure was followed; I(countant Ptepa.ed the bills on form TR 30 and after signature of DDo deposited in AC Sindh for issuance of (heque.

(r') I'!\L2 fvlr. Qaorar Raza has entlorscr'l in his (ross examin.rtioi tlut subic(t bills were rec.iv€d from the oflicc (,i AIG Irinance along rvith the Sarrcli()n Ordtr nn(l []orm l ll 30 was anrrc'xcd on these bills ar.l sanctbn ancl were sub ittcll b AC Sindh.

(e)fhat sin(e the irlvoices c(rme irom the rcievani Petrol stations Ir() cvidence was produce(l that the apPellant had an] thing to do with either the petrrri statiolls or their (rwncrs or th'rt hL'had prr'parccl rrr conniyed u,ith othcrs in prcparing fake Pctrol invoices. -l

(f)hat thc .rppellant di(l Dot sancttln Faymcnt o[ nnv of the bills The sanction was mad€ by the IGP and apProved by AIGP finance and there is no evidencc on record that the npPellant was invulved in arry illegal sanction. lhc iorpuBned ju(lgrntnt lra:'

l,jl

iountl no illegalities in the note uhich L-'c1 to lhe authorizntion ()[ tht snr.tiL)n by the I6P who th('iml'uunerl iu'lgnlcnt has lotrnll \\,,r\ the }rropcr san(tioning duthority but su[!rr15ingll u'ns n(rt evcn interrogai.:d by the IO let alone being made Pnrt ot thc referenc' an.i !^,t'ha\'c lound no e!,i.lcnce t().ontrntlict tlris linLling trt tht' trial court judEe.

(8)It appcars that a number <rf the documents vr'hich were relied upon to convicl the accugcd were photocoPies and the ori8inals were lrot produ.ed despite this being obiectcd to by the ac.used's rouncel $ith thc iudgc notint that this will be decidcd at the final stage but the iudge failed lo decide lhis issue and as such thege photo copy documents used to convicl th€ a(cused a.e inadmissible in evidence and cannot be rclied upon to convicl him. The obie.tion by counsel whi.h (emained undecided is at P.185 of thc paper book. Significantly some of these documents were inlportant being offire copies and (oPies of bills which were denied by the appellant as being Processed by him in his S.342 Cr.l'C statement.

(h)-l he onl!' role ivhich the apPellant appears to h.rve playcd ironr th(. evidence is in Jistrur\inu pavment of lhc bill\ ()n tlrc rnstrucliorls ol AICI) linance aftcr thc sanction hatl alrcadr, beerr rnade bl the I(;P. The inrpugned judgnr!'nt has n()t lounJ an\' jllcgalit\' in the sanction. Ihere is no evidcrce olr re<orrl thal it \^ns the appellant's tunction/role/ltur]- to ve fv thc bills. ln out view the responsibilitt o{ chccktng the vcracitv d tlrc Llills LTv on the l)st scnior olficels oI the Nl{)tor traDsPort Di!i:;i(,n (rr the findn((. section of the police prior to thc t)ills being sanctioned bv tllc ICP On(e the bills l'uve passerl through firrance.lncl LleL'n san.lioned Lrv the ICP it \r'as too late kr exPc{rt the DIJO to Ycrilv tht same.su.h l erification pr(tess had k) have taken Place Prior to the sanctioninll ,,i thc tri,ls lt is .rlso n()ted that !he apptllilnt !\ts undcr Lrrr\strre k) (lisbur.ie paynrent by AI(;f Finance as th('Polrcc it'.rred legal nctilnl i[ the bills rvere n(il p,rid promPtly In I'.321 of thr PaPcr book tllet is a certificate is-sued with Al(; Finanle rvhich rcnLls as lltlloh's, "lt is rctlutstutl lha! llr bills ntty kttlly lte tleutei,/yrtsstl ns llrc dealers al*t pressing htrd lor luytrpnl, i case Ltfnon pttq ent tlPV utill80 to thP (ourt o.f laut", wc also notc tltt accordilrB to l'M (nlce the bills havc lreen sanctioned aiJ thcrc is suflicient lunds in thc reli'\'ant rc(oul1l thc appellant hatl no aulhorit\'or po\{cr t() shlP paylncnt und in this casc, as obs.rved, the tlealers !{L-r. Prcsslng lor paymcnt. Even if we choose to take a har!'ll apProach of any non \,r,rification bt th{ apPcll"lnt as [)DO rt scems thal he !\'.rs ft)ll()h'ir1g usual practi.e in the dcPartmcnt which thc lLl iaited to in(luirc intl' h.\, his or/n adnrission anJ did nol e\,en h(,k into the filrdnaial /ulcs .rucl S()l''s rcgardinrl linnn.e .1t th. (lPO In our viclv this n'oulcl t,nh,dmount to gr()ss ncgliSi:n.('/ irrcliu lari t) at the must ancl not .orruption fallin€i unLlcr ihe Purview of the NAO esPcciallv sincc the appellnnl \,,as loli()wing the Praciice thcrr iIr'"ogue and lcolains in voliue today. The SuPreme Courl as well as vnrious DB's of t

lli)l

this .ourt in a number of autho.ities ha!'e held that negligence/irregularities Perfotmed by a Government offi(inl does not amount to corruPtion but rather mis(onduct whi(h ma]_ appropriately be dealt rvith under the relevant Iaws of the organization espccially if there is no mens rea discernible ftom the evidence on rccord.

In thc aase ol Mansur Ul Haq[e V Covernnrent of l'akistan (l'Ll) 21[)ti S(- li,6) il tv.1s held as urdcr in this rcsPl.!:t ir t I-' l;?h "Ltnrntl toLLnsel -litr-lh( lltlilKWt lktr ,tnl 1,,'ti nblr /o.o,li!,rr. rs lron tlk'tl,idc lLt ot1 ll. ftriri thnl lssettlnl rknrc tsol tttt'lls rtn nd t hltti),] lo LonDn an {fittcc nultr se.lio 9(A!(7ti) of NAB ()rrlirrrrrrrr it'(h' lnn(nbb ot 11a' lri sth ltt)rt o/ l/,. rr.(rlsrr/ nckl fur lh(t perco nl g n il lhc iosl of t ts,:,g litfin(tt b55 k) tltc c/Stitliz ltotl frrN-i( I or lhe shrps nt \ tsl(ltt tt't'h' rat al- i,ttbb tethtolo[y tutLl utt','t'fiol thit a.l ttltrihtltol l sl,tnlanl antl slrttifitalnt. fhe / ?rc Proccdunl ifietularitics ih the ttAfisa.tiofi, uould trot bc sdficieitl to corlstitttted drt o/Iencc nriler s?ction !h)(ri) of fl? ibii ()rditance, This is essefitidl to iriu' distitcliott behuett Proeiurul irrtg lotilics a d t)iolatiotl of sulrsta tiul lrtult,isio so/la ' to .lctentlinc tl;tr q estio,l of cri tirnl liabilitv i the -fhc Irantsactiott, procedural ificguldities fiaq bting an act done h tht o.fficial capatilrl tL'ithin lhe unbit of tristondut tallich is distifigrishtbl? Jn)l r t i al lrtisconduLt or nn $t tohich ottV t:ottstitkte a ol/e e i tl thus ufilcss it is cstdblished thto gh the rtJiilefiac thnt d t t or s(ries o-f a.ls iorc it the tmr$atlio to stitutcd a oiefiac, the crirtinsl .hsrg( tuo Id be grouxLlless. Wc ,nay Poi t out thit lottt,itllsta iing tlo slt?ridl Prot'isions contahlc.l i th. !\AB Ordirronce regar.lins shifti SoJthcburde o/Proof. the Iu,tdahtcfihrl llti,taiplc o.f thr lal..t o-f !:rirrlir,/]l n.lr ittisttdliott of justit'a thdt bnsit onus i5 /].ltt,ulls on tha Prcts(crtil,rt to estiblish Lh? cofitt issio of in offet :e is ttlrt cluuged afld itt tht prcs.ttt caat, ure fittd that the rcsPor e ts hal,ittg ltgotiutcd toilh th. seller c(Dfil1t nq oltroa.l ifl lhe olficial [dfncily efiterc.l into thr co tr.tct oI lturchlrst of sl|ills tt, it tht llruaesi t:ertah llrocshrul itrcSuhrilics tottstituti,ts in nct of lnisco Llurt i lhe .'ottltttlqldliLttt of lulr applimblt to their strt'ite u,eft lrobilrlv .ortntitlei bul the somc fiav tlot Lorlstilute n crirl.inal oflence unit'r 9e.tio gk)k'i) oI NAB Oldintt .e lutislfible u icr settiott 10 of tlv saii ()rilituttc? or ufidcr ottv other laut u'ithout ltool o.f lh| ctistrfie of cle knt ttldisho cst irtte liott of fcrso tl gain' /l/r' /,ros..r lidn fl lht'Pres( l Lns( ln1. tl.,I b(\t itblr lo htttli otL t(coril nnV .irhl.tlt:t h1 sttl1slonlilh' lhe nlktntlr'i of rlisloru''sl fitletll|,n la n ! li n .ill loss h) thr o 3/1, :nlion lor Ptts htl ,grrr lo lrlrrE lht cnst 'tllti tltr l'tn'iit' d/ Nnlro,7x/ ALtdtotlullililv But:\ut Otlt nt 't, 1999 Ir15 ts stlll lntr tlntl xr1,,i-! 1'r'uni rti.rr ,/rsr/rrogr's //rr ttilul t,tthfutt n-l r,!'t'ttry tln'1,

lltl

L-hnrge no lresu tlllton ttf gtrill can le raisttt rtntl itt lh? r.st'nl tn51, IhP llrisit Ihnn (\.11)l l,ct lmX o l ,?rlttt trn's lnttlk\ cofinitk'tl hy thc rc\m dcnls h the lrinsn.tto,t ol ywLlutst nl :hips ftr the u* oi PNSll, hrs aLtl hL'en ahb lo hnri on h\1vd nnU (t\ir e Llnl or Llo tnl? tnry lo sho , lhnl fllln'r lht: lltit. l-or tLthidt thc shtts u\.re purchtlsed, 'as exorbtld lorthrreslo danls ,lttlr datntg.lor lhtit la,rsarrutl lnin hu|e tatsul _linnntwl htss or dny otl@r d,nlng? Lo lhe (I"gj/izalrcn. lnth{liShlof tlte f,nts ol lrostlnttiott (nse ini tht .trtuntila ..s h,tldntg lo llte @r\tlrllott of ltn sd.lrcn tt it d,ii? l on ft.ofl| lhnl lht |h'tt' ![ lhr ri ith'n1:t Ial,e bv lhe lligh L:o rl 'as u ex&lp|tottaL." (bolr.l .rdded) ln the later case ot' State V Anwar Siafullah (PI-l) 2016 gi 276) nr this respcct held as under at P.298 Para l0

l1rctcfu l .t1sts n( tbt:,.l ''10. l\\lh tcJ.r.nie tu tltc fto|c tfu lnu, np1,r'nrs k) bt s.llk1! hv tuttr tlul i n .nst 0[rr.,i,r,q ri Lhnrgt' ttit\' 5.tltt,tt 9l ) (u) ttl tlh' Nttto, ll Aitc,talnbilitt/ Ordnauct, 11199 lh. vosct:tttion has lo |t kt o l n r,lj.olnlble tnse iltltfill lht n(trsttt ytrson Jt rsl rnl llrn tlr burlan ol proof';lills lo ll],. ttrtrts(d l1.rso k, tbrl llte ptsut p\ol ol guill i tuns ti sLt liLrn l4(tl) of lhe snil ()r,!nantt- lt is also upptre t flottt the sa P prpcede t casL's thal a nere procealwal irrcgularity irt the ?xercisc oI jurisiiction fiall not arrrcurtt t!, ,ttist$e oJ duthotit| so as to constitutc a offe ae urul.r se.tion 9@)(1ti) lt the Nll.tio l,-l AcL'uuntability ()rilitottcc, 7999 atid llutt i .luutt: of nisii* t'[ nulhoily ufi/xr lhnt lLn! nfiy bt tlllr:lk\l ultt'k lht:rP $ n i\1ttt9 tottl i|lltopcr ?re 'lsp ol rulhorilv lil n f)urpnsr fiot i)lfl lel hV lhr lfit', uhcra i ftrs!)tt u, tttttltotttv nrl\ |t] t|$re\nnl ol thr lit?r' it\lh l/ri' .r,xrr'irnrs knott lerlgt llt,tt ltt+ nt * ulhout lhr iullt1ril| nf l t, Lt'ltt'n: llttrt'l\ rr (Drs!rorrs rrtisrtst of atllutrily lor fi ilhgil gtitt or nn tt lue lPnefit nntl !'lkrc tll'nLl i5 i1ott. u,illt tnh\il b obtittr (, Errr sorl(' fiitnfit [:a tfil:(',ts1st,'nl ltith lhc lnt fhe snii precedent a ses dlso shott' that ,ltisuse of .lntlrcritu ,te(ns the use of authority or Polo?r irl tt t atu(t aontrary to laat or reflcctitrg tut unrcisoiablP depatture fronl ktrotl't prcceilexts or crstofi ani also that fictls fttt or guiltll .,titld, ih tllc .ofltcxt of Drisuse o! ittthotit!, tt'orl.l fcq itc thit lh? .iccused pcrslt had thr krott:lcdge that he had ,1o nuthotitv to ttct i thc ndnnet he dcted ot thot it uas agairtst the ldw ot prccti.c it t'oguc but despite thnt hc issued the relcTlttfit ifistruL'tion or pt$sei thc ollrrtiing <rrler".(bo[l .rdrictl)

Su(h position t{ns reccntly rc'cnrphasizt'ti bY lhc suPrenle court in thc case of Sikander AIi and others V The State (unrePorted)

J

I[1

t3

dated 20-062019 in (rim. Appeals 153-15ti ol 2tD8 wherc again ir1 a case of misuse of authoritt under the NAO it was held as unrler ill material part at para 4;

"fu lhnt n\ it uv tfu ilst itt hrnl t lts nft of {tfi'tlit'c ?)it,{ution o.l a conltutt of cottstru.lion dtcl ,1ttl ml ryso 71cb rc_llet I po lsttse e'[ ulhotihl h'1/ a ltth]i sernnl or nnv olh?r pcrson ns .ottrnLlllah'd l,tt tl|. yo,'ts(tns Ll- st.hott 9(n) (1,i) ol lht Nrttonnl Ait...:.nhthlilV Orlt nn.c, 1999 is D trlir.ttd hy lltis L.cttLrl ur llt as!i.f 'lht Slth't' Arrir,,v -.atl Ullalt Rh!1 (PLD 201b 5C 2/1,). A,tolhet tudy oI lookirry at lhc allegatiorts let el?d hl lhis .ase orld 11? thttt dt utorst it ttltts tt aase o.f .l crror ol jldgt clt tis-ti-L'i!; selectio of thc sitc lir cofistru(tiofi or eglige ce ot c(rclesst;ess in c.reclttio of tllc ptoject (,itho t anv fiit i ql inte t. No iltilcpcidefit et)i.leftce tltorlh its ndfic hatl bcert brought ox tlft rccoril by the prcsecutiofl to cstablish tlteriot tttt tit,es t!,l thc larl of th? lrPs?\tl dplrel la, fs. " (b.,ld ndLlc(l)

I-ike\, ise in thc .ase o[ Air Marshal (RTD) Waqar Azim v State (l.vLR 2003 Crirrr 161) it \^,as helcl that bank olticrals Builty of netli8enc€ in matters of finance may be liable to ndministrative action under the relevant rules however lhey would not be heid p€nalll, iiable for an offense under the NAO.

t-ikeh'isc in thu .asc ol Sh€r Dil Khoso V State (2011 YLfi t05) it \^,as heltl by a Dll ol this court rvhcrr dealing r.r'ith a case unelcr the I'revention oi Corruption ,Art (ll ol 19'17) that $hen an ernplot,t'e of a bank whilc (oniParing signaturcs h,ith specimcn signature..lrds corhmits .1n t'rror or with 5irt'ss negligence passes or verifics a slSnafure it may be miscorlduct unclcr the rules oF the organizatron for whirh the employer may be justified in taking disciPlinary a(tion or imposin8 a penalty aommitting of suah misconduct or negiigence in verifying the signatures could not be held that the employee has cheated the customer or conrmitted an offense.

J.iLcr\,isL' in th. case ui l\'l.Siddique-ul-Farooque v state (l,LD :(12 Kar 24) .1 DR of this court h.lJ in .1 Nn B casc thnt a hra<1 of a tlepartnr.'nt or lnstihltlon might somelimes excecd his normal administrative powers in th€ interest of the institution and undet sofie wrong imPression about his authority on the basie of the Practice in vogue or on ac.ount of a poli.y framed by his Predecessors and in continuan.e of withoul any obie.tion but every such irregularity was nol to be treated as a misusc of authority

Itr I

3t l'1

al,d the same was not to be treated as a criminal offense and that merc irrcgularity on the part of the accus€d in excrcising his arthority may nttract dis(iplinary a.tiotr u[der the service rules, but in ordet to cslablish the offcnse of colruption and (orrupt pra(ti.es nrere irregularit,'by a holder of publi( offi.e was not sufficient as the prftc(ution must establish misuse of authority with intention to gain benefit for hinrself or anuther.As su.h thc pt(.s"\Lrlioh Ira,l tail.:.1 t(r frr,\'e Ihe ('il(niu (\l Irrr\u\e i,l ,lrrthontl' under 5.9(a)(\'i) NAO

l.rke\\,ise in the.asc ol Rarnesh Udcahi \'-Ihc Statc (l't.l) 200{ Kar 22.1) a DB ol this ((,urt held tlrat the mere floating of surnmary in violalion of Covernment l{ules of Uusiness r,!'ould be an irregular exercise of authorit)' which might call for appropriate disciplinary action agninst the accused under the Sen'ice Larvs, thereb)' rendering him Iiable to disciplinary proceedings in his caPa(il] as a "civil servant", [,ut his such a(tion would not in any way fall within the milichief of "corruption or corrupt Practi(e" as defined in the Natiolal Accou[tability ()rdinan(e 1999 especialll' as thcre was no cvr(lenc€ that tht! .r!(used hdLl nradc nnv nltenrpt t(r obtain nn)' PCrsor.rl B.1i11 fr(,or the tra|Facti(rls and/or extcndcd illegal lFins to .1n! one else .\nli tlr.1t r1i) l(rss l1.1Ll Lrcen |auseel as the Iarrrl irr rrrestiorr h.r.l l)een restored ic) thc (;o\'crnDrt'nt.

(i)We are fortficd in this respecl b)' the Functions ol the AICP l-r)gistics as set out in standing ordcr No.23l/20a19 Covernment o[ Sintlh Police Department !,vhich !iocs not inciud..hecking invoicus arrr.l arranging petrol His iundir)N are set out as under for ease o[ relcrcnce;

AS.SISI ANI INSPECIoII GINEItAt- OF POI,ICE (LOGISTICS),

CI'O SIND!], K,\I{ACIII

1.Nlountcd Police (all matters).

2.lnstallation ot telephones (offices & residence) 3. Purchasc, hiring and repairing of cycles, t)'Pe\,\'r;ters and furnifurc.

4 Ceflcral .onference/ meettlgs. other lhan lau'and or.ler and securitv.

'. I lnitornr. .a,1.lk,rr.

t). \'lnttcrs relldrJi lj nrirrntendn.e ()f(rld re(r)rJ 7. l'rinturg,/su[)pll r)i pLrl)li(nlions ;rr.l l,rrrch.rst' ,:i i-r.ol..s .rnLl peri.)di(nis. Stationcrv.rnd l.)rm( ft. to 11)lirc oilicts

ltrl

:l t includirrg Cl'O irr)m (l('vern cnt Pri,ltirlg & St.rtrorrtr\ Dcp.rrtnlent ct..

il. l'cttv Purch.lse lirr C Pa)

9.Ovcrall Irrcharg.'cli Cienc'r'al and CIothirlS Llranchcs 10. lir !nake.rrr,rnge,rr.nts r)l nrcctings ol ICll',/l'P().

I I l.rral purchasc of st.rtiorter\ an(i b{)(,ki I2. Control anll sul.orvisrol1 ot telephonc e\.hanlles (,I CI'C), Pr)li(!, rr.,ts. I,olic. riiirets ilnt:' anJ nnY i'thcr srr.h exchangc cstdbljshcli in iuturc

13.lle will act as secretar! fc)r all committecs i.c. Procurement and I'urcltase. He \,,-ill also tE resPonsible to coordinate evaluation of the new equiPment al1d products and also arrangL'lor their lield/lab tcsts.

1.1 Aoy other subiLtt assigned bv the ICP/l)PO

0)It needs to be floted that with regard to the aforementioned SRO at entry No,15 it is the fun(tion of the ICP to deal with finan(inl san(tions relating to all governm€nt funds and all other privatc police furds tuaintained by the poli(e deParlment. Yet the ICP was not even inter\'iewed let alone made an a.cused in the

(k)ll appears th.rt as DDO thc.lpFellant authoriseli paymcnt of .1 check to Stantlard ServicL'bul evell tircn there ili no evidcn(e that ht personaliy paid tht cheque in. Even othL'rwise for sonre incxplicablc reason rr,hcn the crossed cheque \,vas P/esentc(l to the bank it was not paid into the account of Staldard Servi(c so if the appellant h'as even attempting a scam hc rvas thwarted as the [ronev oever rcached the pekol station. fher(, is no L'\,idcnce ()n re(ord lo shor,! that the appeilant was mixcd uP wlth .rn)' bank official antl that he u,as involved m ot influencccl the diversit)n oi iur)ds in an! \{a1' kr thc rvrong.lca(rulrt h'hich lvas thc sol(' r'esponsibility of the bank offi.ials some o[ lvhixr h'ere nol even intervielvell bv the I0. Apparentlv due to an ov( rsight on the part t,i thc concerned PW 6 Noor-ur Rehnran whcr is a banker at NBP this oloncy lvas paicl into the Police se.cret service fund kePt by the ICP- Since the bnnk kept mum about their mistake the aPPellant would nol have known that the money was Paid into the Police secaet service fund and that there was no evidence that he did know. L)nce ag.lin su rprisirrgl)' no banker'r,r'ho rnav havc' Lrten involved in ant potential scam hns been rnade Part oi the reference.

(l)lll .rny- event once the amounl lr'as paicl Lrack into thc sg.rot police fund this meant that there was no Ioss to thc G('vtlrnmcnt of

I r5l

-<r

Sinclh srnce tho se('ret poli.c iuntl is used for police purposes such as pavirr8, inlormers.

(rn)E,,en other$,ise the evitlencc on record does not show that anY later rvilhcir.rwals fronr the police sc.rct fund iourld their vvay inhr the hands ()f thc appL'llant. According to the PW 7 Mohamnreci Akbar who \a,as.'l policc.onstable at the :rccoltlrts br'anch for over l5 vears he used to withdra\^' thc cash irom the DDO a..o!nt through the cheques (which havc been exhibited) given to him bv Pl\r2 Qamar Razi and then he gave the cash ba(k to PW 2 Qamar Itaza laho was supe.intendant logistic \a'inti. tn his evidence l'IV 7 Mohammed Akbat confirmed that he only encashed (heques fronr the police secret servi(e funds and that cheques encashed did not go to the appellant. Thus it apPears lronr the eYi(icrlcc that Dronies rvcre lvithdlar^'n from the secret police fund in the usual ,.ourse frribrvinB the prdcticr'then in !oguc anJ was p,)id h) l)IV 2 Qanrar l{aza .rnd not tho rfrpellant. What th| rvithdrau,al !\ as uscel fi)r is any ones guess.

(n)lhat no prose(Lrtiou !vitncss gavc evidence that the aPPellant received any nroney and nl,r lvas anv money re(overed from him, The learned trial iudge haE erred at typed P.25 of the judgment when it is stated that the monetary tain and amounl went in his aacount as the(e is no evidence on record that any of the,rlleged misapprop(iated funds fouod there way inlo the aPpellan{s personal accou[t as was the case with Muhammacl Raiiq, Heacl Constablc \rho on accourt of the lunds Soing into his Person.:l dccount felt compclled to entcr in(o a plea biltllain (q thit no cvidcnce ol anv aPPlicatioll k)r voluntar! rt'turrt, Pl('a l)argain, or pardon on the part (, the aPPcll.-trrt has bte'rr ['.rd bv thc I() and no su.h docunrents have been exhibited and .rs such r4c .ann(* assume tl).lt an! su.h nppliratiorr was nr'rrle as thi'i is not apart of tht, evielente on recolLl as suclr d tl('cumcnt had t() be rxhibitcd in .vidcnce k) lorm n part ()[ the evidcn( e orr rccortl for tlre trial iudge to rely on it. Thus, in our view it was an illegality committed by the learncd trial iudge whilst referrinE to such pardon at t),ped P,26 of the impugned iudgment in ordcr to coflvi(t him espe(ially as it is settled law that this question had to be put to the appellant at the time when he recorded his s.342 Cr.PC statement whi.h it was not and as such as I natter of law il cannot be r€lied upon by the trial i'.rdge in ordet to convict him. Even if su(h applicati(nN had be'en made it was still for the prosecution to Pro\,c its case against tht'accr]scrl bevond a re.rsorratrle d()ubt through legally aLlmissiblt' a()gtnl cvlllcllt:e which $oulcl lrar'r' incluticJ crlribiting thtse' d(tumcnts an.1 thcrelr\, mtrkinll them a parl t)f thr'evidence anrl by thc trial iudge (henl k) lhtr ac(used in the courst ol l)ulti)rg e.rch anJ cvar\'ule !)f his 5.3.12 Cr.l,C statement so tl1at he ha(l tlle chancc to exPlain thc s.rmc. As nrentioned carlicr the Plea bargain ('ntcrc(l in to b\' lvluhammail Rafiq, Heatl Constdblc has no linkdge v,ith th!'

I l(. I

3t-]

appellant or thc other c.)-accuscd. tt is.rlso sr'ttle(l Lr\, not! thdt ii a reasonable .xplanarion l(rr his conduct has lrcen given lrl the appellant in his 5.342 statemcnt it cannot simPlY Lre i8n()rtd [r1' thc trial court but rnust be vierved objectivell agarnst the evi(lencLr ['rought againrt hirn lvhrch it does not apPcar k] h.lv. lreon (lorre in this.ase. ln this rtspcct relianc( is Placed on Sabir Ali V The State (2011 SCMR 629) and !'ven to be tteatcd as more reliable tha,1 his stntenlent, if any, under 5.164 Cr.PC. In this rcsPt'( t relianc!' is plarcd on Nasir Mehmood v State (2015 { I'lR '123)

(p)As mentione(l e.lrlier the actiol)s of lhc apPell,rnt at bcst .an be seen as gross nt gli8cn(e/ i rrrrS u l.rritics but not corruPtion and w( are unable to inJer dny mens rca from his actions ironl the evidence rrhich in most rcspects is lacking in his case In this respect reliah.e is plnced (rnThe Stnte V M.Idrees Ghauri (2008s(iNlR I l8)

(q)Regretlabh, the evi(lcnce ol the l() d()es not.ldd much \'\lright h) thc proseaution case and indicates thnt lhr-' in!'esti8ati()n \4a!' Itoi . arried out r,ery diliSenliy as can be seen from thc iollolving extra(t (r'his closs exarlination at P.1229 of thc paper book lr'hich has already bcen spccificalll noted in thc Iinal para's o[ tlre imPugned iu(lSrrrent.

"l ditl ot itlt,rstigale thdt lllotor Trartsltort wi 8 is urilet co trol ol AIC Logbtn. I dil ttot i .testigate dutils hftestigtltio /ron clerk thal ulto Put up POL bills beloft DDO, \\llrnlttrth! snrls / Lrlr'sli8nl. fro lht aLao filanl. Ac.ot ltltt l did nal distlost lht rann'il any person nlu, suhntltnl hll h'brc tht ttt)O lbr sig .llures. lt is cofiect that originl I|OL bills u'erc tot scizcd. \\tfunlnrilv savs |hni olfice coPi.s lL|re vizsl ltuit ,erc dnihlhle tn lfu oJlitt o.l AIC L8islrl so dlso Photoslat copies of said bills cr. *ia\l .fro t lhe O-ftice of A.C. Strtdh. t'W Qrtntrrr Rn:a /\crotolln t AIGI'LoSlslll yotlu.cd offk'e .o?y ol 5 tt hills. Tlre $nflctiott oilers beat signature of the the AIGP Fi a cc. I ilid,tot rccoril statern( t of audilor frc A-G. Si dh t?Satling nutlErttit'iltt Df bills. I did ttot itbestiSate durittg itaestiSutit fi thal uho rollcctti.heqrc ol lls.30 Million itt thP tnrht lrf Statulard Senlicc Slatio ltorn A.G sirtdh.

Volto arilll stlvs lhal Pw Qnnfit Rnin, A.eor lnnl AlCl' I o)tisfl( t,tlt)ttt.i nt( thnt t/ft.lut of Rs.3l) ttilliotr rl.ii re.rirPtl b)l .o1l((u*tl SVel fi&t llussatn Slutlt lrorn A G. Ofttce. I iwestigalei thut tulto .lePositetl cheque bearing No,1888928 dited 76.12.2014 of Rs.i0 tttillio i the atcouttt ol DDO. Vohottutily sdv. b t I did ,[trt conc to knou obout it. PresefltlV I do ttot refle ber thqt uho sisnci delosit slip l seized dcposit slip. I ,ee dePosit sliP a|'silnble al Pdgc'675 o/ l.R. ani say I .lo not knou' rriro sigrtPtl the saii slip. I oln$tiEtlk'l irct Nltt'rt R?l tttltt Lt t,rtrrt,'l hm*

I t7l

::tt.

ofl'it{ tlut hor, u tros-< .haye il lhe ,tnn. il Sldtdr l Spt,rrr -SlrlriDr r\ts ttefc\tk\l i lht 'r,ortrtl ttl [)L)(1. HL rcllietl that dtut to rush Ltf roork th? said chcque it cledi,tg ttlas reLaitcrl tith daltositql i the o':co ttt <rf DDO. It is c(rmct lhnt Noor-w-Rthnn is ttot tt octusel il this refere ct. I tlid ot eranirte tfu thc trlotlager NIiP Nd.lit Bro .h tt,ho proress.i thc chetlw t,Etlt. 9P).

I htt,t' trot tctttrdt,l tht slnt.ttn\tl t)f ltt\1 hntti\ t)lhicri ilo 5tstttl !rn,tsli'r srrt,ll rt3rst.r. I Llo tnlt tl t ln\t bnnk of.fiLtrs sigr ltrric scole at liirtv i tnrt!^n!t t)l lhttDou l ,rl,().. trr.n ns.5 ht l)tlitlg inu.sligatio DD(, k\ts tt<tt i fonfiei by bark matager altottl u,rortll cheque dct osited i DD()s dccount. I it ttot k ou' lhit barl< nauqet i _fonnci to A.C. Sindh regarding l.posit ol ?Jronq rh?que. /l rs /,k'{)rn'( / li) ql/.!.gr'\/r rl lltrtl hutrk rtlllL.drs cont]/,ttllLrl lraul by iepsiling thequc i,rii) i{'ro,r.q .,tot rt I iid ,tot t'ctify dtri g ifioestigitiofi tlnt a ounl o/ Rs.l .18312512,75 ttudilible il tltp I)D() ncNurlt. l .lo ot rer e,,lbet lhut .trfloutt oi Rs.l b6500996. /-2 u,ere arailuble ur lha DDO .tccounl. I ditl not i,|z,cstigote lh t ho.L: nu{h ntrrcufit of secret seni{e }iuttls u,as lvit g ittto the dcco it of DD(). lt is correct to sugltst that ds per note sheet a{nildbte ot pige-998 t 999 of l.R. the A<'toufit,,ttt sub tittci thnt o ittstrkctions of lcl) Rs.30 lliuion tl\ts requiftd t<t bB k)ilhdrau,n Jiotrr |cco tlt of secrct se'i.,iac F ,td".

(r)It is truc that thc appcllant did sign sonre Li(r*uments however in our vier.v this is insufficicnt to pro\'e thc.h.ulle against him trc,"-onti a rcason.rble doubt esPcriall! in Iht' absenrc ()[ an! rnens rea.

I,l. lt is a cardinal principic of criminal iurisprudence that the prosecuti()n must provc its case beyond a rcasonable doubt and it !s not for thc ac.uscd t(r .lisprove the case aliainst him who m.ry to[c an\' and as manv defenst:s as he likcs ttr the allegations againsl him as thc onus rests on the prosecution to prove its case be)'ond a reasonable doubt as !a'as helcl in the case ol Muhammed Shah V State (2010 SC-MR 1009) anLi the finding of guilt rnust be rcsted surely and firmlv on evidence Produced in l the case and cannol be decided on surnrises and cluie(ltlrrt's or high probabilities to prove the guilt of the accused as this tvould reduce thc goltlen principle of the bencfit of thc.loubt t() n.iuliht.rs w,rs hekl in thc case of Ata Muhammed V State (1995 SCMR 599) and if there is anv

I rli I

\l \

doubt in the prosccutions case the bcnclit must go to the accused. As h'as held in the case of Tariq Pervez V The State (1995 SCMR 135) that if there is a single ciraumgtanae, which creates reasolrable doubt in a prudent mincl at-)out the guilt of the accuserl, then thc accuse!-l !'!'ill be entitle.l to lhe benefit not as a matter of grace and .oncession but as a ,naLter o, right. Such principlc was r(ently rcit(rated bl' the SuPrcmt' court in thc casc of Abdul Jabbar v State (2019 SCMR 129).

15.ln our view for the rcasons mentioned above the pros€{ution has failed to prove its case against the appellant fanveer Ahmed beyond a reasonable iloubt and the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt and as such his appeal against conviction is allou,ed, the impugned iudgment is s.t aside and the appellant is acquitted of thc charge. Ihe appellant shall be rcleasctl unless wanted in any other castodv casc.

'furning k, NAU's appeal against a.quittal r)f l{espondent Fida Hussain shah.

16.It is settled law that iudgmenl of acquittal should not be interiLtted until lindings are per.r crse, arbitrary, foolish, artil;cial, sPeculative and ridiculous as held bv the Supreme Court in the case o[ The State v. Abdul Khaliq and crthers (PLD 2011 Supremc Court 554) Nloreover, thc stoPt' of interfere ce in app€al against acquittal is narrow and Iihited be.ause in an acqLrittal the presumption of the innNence is significantl]' addcd to the cardinal rule of crimirral jurisprudence as the accuscd shall be Presumed to be inn(Eent until proved guilty. ln other words, the PresumPtion ol innocence is doubled as held by the Supreme Courl irl the above refern iuJgDlerlt

17.ln the r€ent case of Muhammnd Shafi V State (urrreported) dated 07-05-2019 irr crimin.rl APPeal 48-L of 2016 this legal Positi(rn was reemphasized b)' the Supreme Coult in the folloh'inB terms as under;

"lt rs btl noa, ,cll sttlfud llhll d,tlu)llil cnrrir's tullt il do ble pllsuktptlo of t,tttocctlt't; il ]s t{ltets'l only rtl,!,t .foknd blatnfitly per1rerce, rcsting uftort ftirlScs of irhpossibility a, l resulti g itto misrafiiagc of

I le J

jrstiE. lt ca @t bc s?t asid.^ tncrely oi tlrc possitility of a to,ttru oieu'. flt( fl*h t'.('tttl l $ ierognl.d fiafl xllled printtpbs d krt' nul thus ieparlrre itx's ,i.ol o n t:ttd ilsclf 1t'tlh dPProl'nl. Rrs lta lly, trintitnl r.1p.,ll is allottL't!, inltrry,ll,rl |(dgn.tnl likd 15.2)016 is sel nsii.. 7'ht ..lfclltlttt ts ,trrtutltL,l ftont llu clnrge tni 5lulll L,r s'l t1l lil\rlll lorlhr\th, il'nnl ft\tutki u inv otht'r tn:\r''(boLl tllrd)

18.'fhe nlain reasons rvhv liespondent Fida ;lussain Shah r.rtrs acquitted of the charge are set out in FOINI-No 2 typed I'.26 and 27 ot' the impugned iudSment u,hich is reproducecl as un.lcr for ease of refercnce:

''I order to p/ottc lhnt fi.e sed Fidn llussain Shah hile a.li,q ns Al(;P finnce, indh, Karacli oblai ed gcfiPrttl npptooal for tllocatton LlJin,ts to Lagstic bnn.h tllc prosec tian hns rehed q1.)tt t]l)te sh"ft Ex 62 'lti.h is rcprod c..l lereu,ith:

5rri,t'e./r Relctsc of.fLttls auoutti SloRs.75It lliott It ts slhnillel lhnt Fit l.l' D.pntl,,,',tl t,ifu lrll.r d trl L9.l1.2014 has prolirltd .1lnds nnn tlins lo Rs.75 ttttllio,r !k1. llug-A. Tltt dttdil is ns utdrri A03807 POL Charges Rs.50 nullnn.

A039U H]ritt{ thruge Rs.l0 nilho,1.

A03970 FeedntE Ontgcs Rs.15 nillior.

Total: Rs.75ltlillio ,

2.As p.r Wcs! Pakstan Delegulion oJ ft uni l Rules uttll.r tlu' linancll Rubs anrl PLturrs of Rr npltoprinliofi Rulcs 1962, lhc |L,l'r .ollP?tcrl Nlhonly lo snt,rltofi tlQ unrcunl.

3.Alryrrol,nl lot tssut Lnldrge cV (jrbi.ite is solicil, .

4.Appropnl .fot fnantial sa ctiotl Df ICP Stttlh is solicilci lor lht' anou l Rs.75 tnilliofl undrr dbot'e ttcn.s lto lhe iccoufil o[ l(;P Sindh (KA 4059) at laymcnt of dnk'ts/fitns d ritg Clrtcnl hntu.rtlyt\1r 2011-15

5 Al)fl ulafi.r ltl lhc hght of t an W approttl o{ IGP Sindh $ s'ltcilei on latrn 3 [a

4/N.

b. AlcPftiio tc.

I'ata 3 anil4/N ttal bc appturetl.

. !"t.;ilt

ll rel'eils llutl ntl? shttl t tttttorrcd nbol\' ttol l iliah:d hv ic(u*l rrr1ll lluse;lr Slnh, hut il ,ns iniholtl h! ts-ll (hnnch tlcrk) fLtruvrLled lo tht Assishtrlt Dire.lttr (fifion?) n d llt la llp t!.cused fdn Hnssfiot Shtlr AIGP fnnnta whLt Jitnotfud ll( sn lt\llt ratt lrks " ny be approtei" la lht lrlsfe.lot C.entnl of Polkt ll(;P) st i]t lt ' approtnl nla Xtu,tfcd il l)V cndorst g "yes" .o lso u dtr Wtsl PnLisln Delc|nl@ns ol Po&'rs d i I tnancial Rttlrs, 1962. Hrni o.l polik epnrhefit is l sllector -Cenpral al Polict lto ielcgtted fill lx.,]lers.for snncliorlilg tonstnahlc s llpli$ for poli1 tl?Nrh t l, llk' AICP tot.lclequh:d s tlt yorLers, sotlso u,orl "unt1lu ryl,rot'ttl" nnn llfil son|lhmg is possLblr, but nol dclinin' lo rrl-!1, i/ ts ,lol slr(ri.'rrs lll., i thirity of ..c.rlsel lo ii5b'irse, slolt, lrat\1tl ot irstn nnY ftnnrttn! hills A ru(lnnut d ti,tt "nury be nllpral'(i" 6 tn txl tllnl hns nol botlitg eted eilher it ttv elt or not. Norc ol lifisetultott |'ilncss l.,f,osrd lhat lttlh lh. aL.r.ii t:\.I'rful i|11 ol lus ,.,.n,!lrs a{ n.h\1 ibgally rt nnktng tL:oti "nfiy bt nllp\lltcd" th llk' ok'sh/,?l. Th(tc ts no etidelrc? ol-obtiolil{ inv L'gul g hfLnlk' nnd It cuttitry turc-fils hy lltt nc.ltsel.'lhe l/O lnrrtg t:toss evntitution ndniltetl thul Ir dii ,|ol sR a y ill.galitlt itt lhc nole sh.el, rL,lPt',d l L:rost ttnt ttttllton 15 repro.lued hrrefllh:

"lt is conect to suqSest that 'Iariq Khas|heli is th? P?rcort .oho initiqted the note sheet (Et V2).

"l did lot sec aftlthing illegol ifi thc fiutr sheet (Lr 1y'2) becatlst it tL.tts rcgardi,l'g genrral aypnttal nI LG 5itulh."

"ll is (ort?ct lo sr/j'.gdsl thnt ote shect ltx 6/2) does nol t:arry any legnl consiierutiofi ttlithoul Sr. No.7 ttthich beurs thc ipptoudl of tht I.G Sitdh".

"lt is coftcct to suggest that 'ts pct note sheet l.C. Sindh is the oltprooittg .t thoritg."

"Duifi| i urstigation I di.l ot consiller a v fiha tial lat. rrlatins to tlp tf;otk of thc prooitcial departfle t pnrtic htt it polie departmeflt."

"t did not !olle.t job d?scription oI AICI' Fitutttt.fron tht Clr(l Ketuchi,tpither colla.tpil t\'ta ual o.foperdtio s.'l "lt is cot'rccl lo sr/8g(st lhat colt! trt 3 Puu I ol lR bentf icidry/palqrent cretliled is fiot bears the fit of tttcusPtl Sqed Hussaitt Shah.

sintili/ n ntltt dotnnlrnlarv .trdcnc( ogulttsl Sl1ed Fida Hussanr iluh, on toltich prosrr:utiL) relied upon E Fttlttn\nl Sflt1rlnn Oriers (fSOs) nttnc]*i t,ilh bills (L,t 7/2. k, E\ 7/5) btirng duntbts 3248 intel 28.11.2014. 3241 dakd 28.11.2014,3427 doted 04.12.2014. 3630 d tul 09.12 )014 nnl i418 dtkil04.12.2014 tht prolotypc of l

[.]r I

3't'z

l-S()s are st,,l? e*tpl dtrtc, orl tL'td nunler rtrul fufikr, so o l ol fit'( PSOs onc is reprotluced lNrc\\th:-

cot'fnN,lrfNr of sINI) POrrcf llf P.{r{rlr-\ r

I,4L 5,4NCTION O

In evrctst of lle poutrs oestel in i,tu setitl No.3 (a) ol th? Wrsl l'Rkistt1fi Drle+nl@n o.f Prnwrs under l]p FfurntLt Rul.J nrui lltt porocrs o.f Re-aTtproprtttiun Rules 19b2, Snn.tion is lterd,V nc.nrttd h) ircur rt ctpendihrre of Rs.10,rfi0,000/- (Rul.e' ftn nlllrcn) .n tlccott l of PAL Llfitgcs dfitot during tonlh L)f Otlab 2014 hlt ll( Srtrilr Poltce uchiLle (List L'fidosei).

2.llte expeitlil re inrch,ed is lehilnble lo tl:r' ln\d ol-& Lt'ltrtl "51.- 2t014 PoliLc-KA415g ICP Sindh Kanchi" urtttt ite 'AA 07 POl, Chfltges" irn s llp cur-rtnl ftrandal year20'11-15.

3.ntt nnrJu t shall be drnurr n d Pn l lo t\.4/s. Qltik FiLlng Saxtr(rrs 5rkfu r' lrrorlsh a ross c l tultt.

S,lt (lttspect(rt Gctel.tl of Police) Sitdh Knracht.

No.B-V/F5Ofi248 Knrnchi dah'd 28.11 2aI4 Copv font'arderl lo lh? folknhy for tn.fontttlio nnd ncccssarrl

1.nE Acrountd l CexeralSindlt Kunrh.

2.PS Io IGP Sindh.

3.The DIGP (l&T) Sindh KrtttLlti 4.

4.'ftu DICP Sukkutfullkanql8. n rnhad R rtgts

lsved Fidq |htssait, shah) PsP AlGl) (ti tnw) For lnsptt,lor Ccntrrl Ltf Polnt S,rtlh Ktrarhr

L.lery l?ltet rcquir$ altlh liLalfitl nl lh( cni ultt.ll enht t'lla lnkts the rcsyarciblity ol tuhot hai Ltr( s,1nl in llr loregoing Ittk,r nnd tak.5 lhr hlttbn npon his -,houlitrs hy l lli,tg his sig alure, llpt( ts u,L,rd "sd/" holE lrt lhe ir:srgrtrtlrt,tt ol lnslletlor Geneml o{ Polrtt 5m1h, Karac}t. orr f-9O, rrt sotph' lnrtgttttge lhis " xl/" meatts'sig ed/slgnntur.' atld tl pPrbon ktkrs tltt ttqorcibilitll ol ldal luls b&'t1 stlid ir tfu foregoi,tg lctter so hcrc "stl/" ts signrlurc of lCP. In tlu, ctrd of LSO lh?re $ slglalure o[ L' sed Fttla tlttsrtin Slttlt lor l spettor fi!(rnl ol Pohd' rdtiJl nnns ot bthnl! ni 1(;P Sn h duch is tlso alnntlel hv l/O sa lst' rottlcfils n\\\ls lltnt tl

I

lIl

.,. r

ins font,ard!.! fot infonnatiofi lo con.cr cblmth c ts dli\g ctoss ern timlon I/O nd tillei us rnder:

"It is .ofie(t to sug$.st that is ptr ot? shc?t l.G Sindh is the alprot) htg .tu tlro ri tV."

"The expressio tt,t fitfirrial snfi[tiotl ordet datcd 28.11.2014 i.e. (Swd Fidd H ssdil shih- PSP AICP (Fi a cc) Ftlt lfislrectot Cencral o/ Policc Sitrdh Katu dti ,ncofls o behdu o.f l.(;.1>. Snulh."

"lt is cotrc(t to su&gesl llt t .lutins irta.rtigdtiott ,tt!/ colsiileratiofi, dclibuatiott i r?sfe<:t of all lillttttcidl 5a ctio ()rdcrs bcoring No.3127 .r 3123 lotcd 01.12.2001 orul be ar irg N o.3247 ntl 3248 tli t l 28.1 20 1 ind f ittttxc id l sdnttion otdu bearirt( No,3b30 lat?d 09.12.2011 tL:cr. sdrrlr The fittst onporlunl chirncl?l in the nole shel ani F.sO ts ICP n/lo ts oJlicer DL \nh'gtry:l nnd llnd o.[ Poli,:e f'eytt,tte l n sob 'l dulharilv af nfiv fhnttiul snn.lion antl illoul lln o .ltl|\ttl]/,nl .ilher frocessed by tlc hrmeh ck'rl u l:ontunlcl. 1lt tlir. Llg.t! hurtfun ol ipptot\ng lltc trcle sl:ftl t1fid l5O lies on lllr sl|,ult|'r of lltt lCP, u det"lhe t d]1|)elatatnn ofPo|'crru lpr the Ftnancial Rulps nnd Po ,ers af Rc pptayiit|'rt Ruh's, 1962 li;P is s,n.lk,ll?ti aulltority; I/O has itiiljerittlll fuil l k1lir fttpt'filbiltt! pt',ttlll"ltu l(;P Sirnlh na/ bctltktLl lut in ycs? Lt' rtJ.re rr tt'tllnrl tul fugnl bosts mi 4tpliei rbthL' slunlnr,l lor lhc rerrstrts lu.l k,to 'n lo ltt t tlfits pt\te(tnliLlt1 hns htbl k' prorr lhc sole ntttlnrity oJ a.Lusel Syr,! lul,t Hussan Slnh i sa t:lia i g L\Penditurc on uccount of POL .hflrgas ctthtr @11..!s any L't\tlfit tLt p/o|'t llnl a.ttsel n.l?d llegdly or le al l s tltLitt inlnktl olc slL,el ll)L rclirr( fotnt N!-2 t]lln l4.r ns al rfo(ri."

19.lVhen askcd to point out r!'hat was the rlletFlih' in the above firtcting the special prosecutor NAII was Llnable to do so nParl frorn .1 general a$serlion that thc learned trial iudge had nrisread Lhc ev;dence ln suppori ol their contentions thcy placed reliance on Mst Zahida Sattar V I'ederation of Pakistan (Pt.D 2002 5:C 408), The State v. Abdul Chrffar (1996 SCN4R 678), Agha 14azir Abbas and others v. The State (2005 SCivlR 1175), Sir.i Din v'fhe State (2t)01 YLlt 1307),The State v. Aghn Wazir Abbas and olhe.s (2004 SCNIR lll21)

20.Learnerl counsel for Respondcnt Fida flussaii Shah initiallv submitted that NAB's appeal a[iainst acquitt.rl was tilne barred. Howe\tr rve have observed that the certified copv of the lrrdgprerrt u'as received b\'

I

l:rl

NAt, on 07-07-2018 and the appeal was filed on 17-08-2018 and thus the appeal was filed bv NAB within l0 days which is $'ithin the Prcs(ribed period under 5.32 NAO and as such this submission is misconce;\'ed as NAB's appeal is vv'ithin time.

27.()n nrerits leaned counsel io. ResPondent Fitla llussain Shah submitted that as a fiatter of law the apPeal against convicti()n could not succeed as the acquittal of thc resPonderlt through the impugned iudgment was not arbittary or rvhinrsical but had solid foundations in lau' and fact based on the cridencc on record. ln essence hc argued that the note to pay the POL which was at the hcart of the Prosectrtion case against him as admitted by the lO harl been legalh' sanctioncd b! the ICI and that tllere is no evidence on record that he mislcad the IGP in his note or evcn f(,rged the signature of the ICP. The ResPondent had simpll prrx-eedt d in accordanr.c rvith the rclevant rulcs in a rather Post bor fashion and there had been no misuse oi authoritf by him anll no eviclence of the same could be found on the record and as such NAB's appeal against his acquittal should bc dismissed. In supPort oi his contenticrns he Pla.ed relian(c on Ramesh U.Udeshi V State (SBLR 2005 SC 37)

22.We have heard SPecial Prosecutor NAB and learned counsel ft,r Respoodent Fida Hussain Shah in rcsPect ol NAB'5 aPPe.-tl .tgainst acquittal and have considered their arguments and the relevant law.

23- Keeping in view the above lau' on aPPcals agailrst acquittdl ,rnd our analysis c,f the evidence rr,hi(h does not shou'any rnisrt'ariing of the sanrt' and the impugned iudgment r.,,e find that the resPondent has rightly been acquittL-cl of the charge b)' the imPugned iudgmeit as thc findings of the trial c()urt are neither pcNerse nor sPcculative but rather well reasoncd and rvc find no rcason to interfore with thc same and as such the aPPe.rl against acquittal ol the resPondent is dismissed.

24.ln summary the appellant fanveer Ahnred's aPPeal against convi( ti()n is allowc,,i and he shall be relcaserl unless wantcd in any other

I24 I

5q ''

custodv case and NAts's appeal against thc acqrrttal of Syccl Fida Hussain Shah is tiisrnissed.

25 lhc appeals are disp<-:sed ()f in the above terms Ak/ - tutiE lill

JU

qr.tr

a

I