DR. MUHAMMAD TAYYAB (Applicant) VS THE STATE & ANOTHER (Respondent)

5UU

a

F-

t 6)

IN T}IE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

I(ARACHI

((_-riorinal Jurjsdictronl ,.1 ' 'A.Llei z,st Cr. Rcvision Appl, No.ll - of zo22

Dr'. lrluharrunad TEyya[r Son uf \ luhammad-Iia hrnr Rcsrtient uf H. No, F-]0, lvlarlh,, i#;k" i i\'l ulralla Fareed Gu lslran-c-h;L.rl Goth, '/;aui

I

Kar.rchr

,t l,

I vERSUS

I

l

1.Ihe Stary 2 Specjal IuJge Anti-Coruptj ,rr (pro\.incjail Karncl.ri Respondr,nts

u

L I N

S J I . . Cr,.P.C. a_--

I

i

i

or, -.t

tl T, o t

I

I

I

zol

t

TI{E HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHT

Crimirral Revision Application No. t zo of so'Ls (Dr. Muharnmad Tayyab vs. The State)

Present: Mr..Iustice Jan Ali Jrrnelo

For r\pplicints: \1r. Sarfaraz Ali Mctlo. learned advocate Fol State: Mr. Munrtaz Ali Shah. A'P.G. Sindh.

il- ' .Date of hearing: -+ o6-o3-2095

2-s--<t Datc ofJudgment: s-eos s

.IUDGNTENT

Jarr Ali Juneio, J.--'l'lrI l)r.('\enr ('r'irninal Iler isiotr r\pplicatiorr has ll 'la-t i'air' been tllerl b-v the ,\pplie arrt (accrrsed), Dr. Nltrhanrn.rad challengitrg tlre or.cler rlaterl ,ls o+ g022 (here-in-after referred to a\ ihe lrlilrl,gr tt! Ordrr\ P:rsserl b,l' the CoLrrt of learnetl Special 'lrrdqe $i{ i-i .\rtti-('t,rr ,tItiott (Pr,rr rt,e tal'. Kat'acltt therc-irl-aftel relerred to ;r''

*L

,\ the learrtt'tl 7-nal Courl' rn Special Case No 3'[ /'':tl'2o rTlre Statl It l.l 'Tl o Dr. Nltrharnnracl Ta-vlair L'nrrarli). s herebl' the application tttttler S*Vl o Secriorr ,l9-,\. Cr.P C filetl on behallol'the Applicant lor acqtrittal rr as .lt s ttr i.secl

.1. FIR No. Ol/2oJ(r' registered at P S,,\CE-Sotrth' Karaclri' lrr Cornpi;rin:urt ltrspector Zahirl [-ltrssain lVlirarr] ot ACE Srrrtllr' 'l'ar'.t'ab Llrnlani engagetl irr tlLral alleges tlrat Dr. NlLrlrarltttiatl

{()\'r'rr)nr('ttt etrlploltltettt tl'aLtclrrlttttll' fi't'tlt ll)t)3 to 1t"'" '1tr ti' i, crilicrrrrentlv sot liitlg ;rt StiSSl arltl tht' Sirldh Ilealth l)epai':rrr'''ttt

ZoL /l )

t2t

I

rvlrilr'rlr';rwirrg salari.s arrr.l lrr.nr,[its Irrrn ltr,.it.'l'ltc t:trst:, autltttrit.r.rl

lry r\C(l-t Sinclh lirllrrrt,ittg a ().t.1,t.,t()li) nt(:(:t.ing art) art 1111,ytir,;, irrt, O,nrlrlaint No. (;()-B:r/,t()t!t, rtriginaut) trrtrn a lU.()(;,2()Y) rt'1r.r'.t by tht, Sc<;rctary of llr.altlr t. thr: (ihirrl Minister. ,\r,lir tirrrlir:gs arrd dcpartrrrr.nt;ll i,r\'(.stigirtiorrs corrfirrrrr:<j rlrt.illicit,l,i;rl r'rnpl<rymcrrt, r'r:sulttng tn a linancial loss of'Ils. i,+,:,.:Jz,()()O t() tlt,.

1,rrlrlir: cx<:lrcrlucr, fbr r'lriclr I)r. t Imrani is liablr: f or rt:ctwery.'!'ltr.

lillt assr:rts collusio. rr ith SESSI ,filccrs, highlightirrg rraurJrrlr.rrr itttcnt and ulterior rnori'cs that causer.l substantiar public runr.ls ) rnirapl>royrriation. Char.gr' rr as fiamed against the Appiicant *.hrr rlrrl not Plrrad grrilty arrrl clairrrcrl to be tricd. During course of trial, tlre pr.s.t'rrtirrr cx.rrrrrt'rl tlrr. (),rnPlainirrrt namcly. zahid llussain l\liratri, ,,\('i.., Sirrrllr, \\ it,) l)rorll(,r.(l l.t,rtcr of'r\rlditional Dir<:r:tor.

I

(l.r'gal), fbr I)irecror ,\( 1.- SrnrJh, adclrcssed to thc Complainant at

L

x; ().9/i\l Lctter of SO(\,lll) of Chief Ministcr,s Secretarjat *H rJ atltlrcsstrl t. thc (lhairnran, I.l&,,\ ClL._ Sindh, at Lx: OJ/B: Sumrnary rrt thr.Scoctar.y lleaith \onr t() thc Chicf )Iinister Sindh, at Ex.

().3/('; ;1111,511,d cop_v of the m;nutcs ol the sard meeting of ACGI, at

Iix; o3,/D; the Lettcr dared tl-te-zorf.l issued by Directoi ACE Sindh to lodge FIR against Dr. Tayyab Umrani anc.l hokl open 'inrirriry against Dr. N{umraz;\li Sheikh as Ex: 0SlE; FIR at Ex,

orilli-l Rcccrring copl'of the said letter at Ex:09/G; the ietter dated: (tti-(t l-102() issLrcri b-v the Complainant to the Commissioncr

ZoZ

I tsl

StrSSI seeking record at Ex: oSlH; Reminder to the Secretarr..

Health Department, Go,,t. of Sindh Karachi claterl: t 7.ot..Jo2o seeking reler.ani recorcl lor inr.esllgsliep at Ex: OSll; Covering Letter of SO-1, Health Departrnent at Ex,oSlJ; atested cop\. of.

CNIC of accused at Er,oSlK; attested copies of his pay Slips at Ex,o3li-, Ex:OslM & Er:oSlN; Cor.ering Letter of SO_1, Health Department Go't of Sinclh dated g+-06-:2Otzo at Ex:03,/O; attesrecl copl' of Appointment Order of accused ar Ex:03/p a,d attesred copy o[his Charge Reporr at Ex:0s/Q; Covering letter of Accorrnts

D

Officer Ilealth-I,.,.\ccor.,rta.r General Sindh dated O9_07_ZO2O at Ex'O.9/R; ihe atteste(l cop1.6f the Salarl.Statenrent ofaccusetl at Ex:ttSlS (oS Ieavcs); Or.igrrral salar"y bills of accuserl Dr. Tay,r-4b , ). a Llrtrrani issued b1,, Sessi rr e t [.'elrr rrary 20 l5 to No\.etnber 20 l(i, erctpt October 2O lil, rv|1o51, gi1;[111 cop1, is pt.oduced at Ex:S/l-( ]) .t,)..

to 3/'l-(22). Salar'bills r,f accLrsed from March 20t1 toJune 2Ol7 (l o isstred b-i, Sessi at E\: 3/T(ss) to s/T(26); the letter of Barrk S*H Nlanager at Er,OglL'. Rerelr.inq copy of the reminder dated: orj_ \ O2-2O2o at Ex:O.9/\'; and the Letter dated OS_OZ-2O2O at Ex:O.9/W respet tivel_r..

I s. The learned counsel for the Applicant has argued that the ,("\ applicant is an innocent and respectabre citizen falsely impricated !,t.

.,/, in the case, *ith no tangible e'iderrce or likerihood of conviction, \\'arranting acquittal under Section 2+9_A Cr.p.C. He argues that

Zo\ t4)

I

the tria j court has tlre authority to acquit at any stage ifcharges.ar-e groundless, even - belore evidence recording, to avoid flrrtile proceedings. He emphasizes that subjecting the accused to trial t. u:ithout sufficient evidence constitutes harassment, as tria ls ' are ' -!

inherentll' burdensome ('jeopardl' and ordeal"). He asserts that prosecution rr,itnesses. including the Chief Medical OfTicer, failed to corroborate the accused's dual emplovment or salarl r,,ithdrarrals. rendering the case unprovable. He stresses that tlre \ IrlR's 3-r'ear delar', unerplained. undermines credibility and F luigests collusion, makins the prosecution oppressive. He concludes that the absence o[ incriminating rnaterial and reliance on precedents jusrif\' acritrittal to l)revcnt abuse ofjuclicial process.

e learned counsel has relierl upon the Case l,alv.s i.e. PLD tsgsl lO63; 90o7 PCr.U trig (Dirision Bench); s0l6 PCT.LJ :ztj6 lJ- o rore; 2ol; PCr.U Note 162; l99l PCT.LI 217? (Muhammad ,t Fl ssan \'. illanzoor .{hmad): ,O I I SClvlR 863 (State r'. Muhammad Saleem fihan); PLD l9;:l Kar *?E (per Mr. Justice 'fufail Ali A Rahman); and unreported Judgment of Supreme Court in Case of .\bbas I{aider Naqvi and another i.. Federation of Pakistan, etc.

+. Per contra, the learned .\PG has argued that the revisiorr ,/ application is premature. as the trial is at a na.sqent stage rvith on11,

I

crne s'itness eramined and critical evidence--includ ing testinrolties tiorn SESSI, Health Deprartment. ancl bank oftrcials, nlqns \\ith

Isl

contencls \- salary recot'ds and service files-yet to be presented' FIe deprive that halting proceedines at this.itrncture rvould unjustly allegations th€ prosectrtion of its opporttrnity to substantiate'the

I

prejudicing the through a complete evidentiary record, irreparably uncovering systemic State's case, Emphasizing the complexity of that the delay in financial fraud and dual employment, he asserts fatal' as such offenses FIR registration is neither unexplained nor inherently require prolonged audits and inter-departmental weight of evidence scrutiny. He further stresses that credibility and cross-examination' ) can only be assessed after a full trial, including and that prematurely involiing Section 2+9-A Cr'P'C' risks stifling

right justice by relying orr incomplete material The prosecution's claims of to marshal all evidence, he al'gues, outrveighs speculative tr:aldship to the accusecl, particularly in cases involving Public: is essential to exc hequer losses, u'here thorough judicial scrutiny uphold accountability.

'fhe learned APG has relied r'rpon the cast:

2oo8 SCMR sss;

las's i.e.2022 SCMR l86l; 20lo SCMR l785;

2oo5 SCN,IR r544:2oo4 PU SC o2t2o2o YLR Note z (Sindh); 2016 . / J

P.Cr.L.J: Sindh 88s; artd 2024 P Cr'L'J' Lalrore i. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced b1'both on parties artd have thororrghly examinecl the material available reveals that the \ record. A thorough examitration of the case record adrrlittecl complainant, durirrg cross-exanlinatiorl, categorically

?oL

I6l

tltat no rvitness confirmed the Applicant,s employment at SESSI, and crucially, the Applicant's purported service records arie

trntraceable. The Complainant/1.O, has admitted that no file of service of the Applicant is available in the SESSI Ofiice. The statement of the MCB Manager also shorvs that no record of salary is available in the Bank. The statements of eriployees recordecl by the I.O. under Section r o r, Cr.p.C. wherein they admitted that they had never seen the Applicant in SESSI Office. These admissions strike at the core of the prosecution's case, as they conclusively neg.ate the foundational premise of the charges. The prosec vtigr.r ., ., J lras utlerly failed to proclLrce any documentary evidence-such as an appointment letter, attendallce register, or service contract-to establish the Applicant's employment with SESSI. The Investigating Officer (lO; explicitly confirmed that no personal file )t of the Ap1>licant exists at SESSI, further corroborating the absence -} of any institutional relationship. Despite the i Applicant's, categorical deni.al of ownership. of . the alleged bank ar:count and salary-related documents, the prosecutior: made rro ,etlort to conduct handwliting analysis or obtain FSL reports to verify signatures. This glaring omission undermines any attenrpt to link the Applicant to the purported financial transactions. Tlre bills/r,ouchers (Exhibits 03/T( Itss/T(zo)) Iack the i\pplicant's sigtratttres, atlcl tto rvittless testitled to his trrvolverlrent in their

Zo T t?l

clbatiott, handling, or reccipt. The l\pplicant has rrnequivocaliy ,t -ry

clenied the said vouchet's. This creates a fatal disconnect, shi[tinq responsibility to trnidentifrecl thircl parties' The MCB SITE Branch t'ecot'ds, s'hich cotrlcl ltave potentially clarified the r\pplicant's

alleged iuvoll'etnetrt, rverc destloyed in a fire' irreparably \ claims '\ compromisirrg the prosecution's ability to substantiate its prior de1>artmental inqtriry (No ACE/East/A L3s5' 20l7) hatl

evidence a'rready recommended ciosing the case due to insuftlcient The Investigating oflicer's admission ol ignorance about this

I

inquiry raises serious concerns about the prosecution's bona fides

The and suggests a deliberate disregard lor exculpatory findings lnvestigating Officel"s evasive resPonses drrring cross- examination (. g , "l do not knorv" regarding the prior inquiry and

. "l had not sent recot'ds flor folensic analysis") reflect a non- Sectiott application ol mind and a breach of statutory duties Linder l5i CrPC, rendering the investigation unreliable The prosecution's reliance on hearsay' cottiecttrres' arld procedtrt'ni lapses violates the car<linal 1>rinciple of criminal iurisprttdence thrt

chargesmustbepror.eltbeYorrtlt.easonabledoubtthr.orrghcrediblt..

diret--t, anrl corrobor.ativc evidence. Tlre plosecrrtiort has thilrtl ttr

establish even a pt'inla facie case, as it catrttot 1:rove:

Emptoyment: No eotttrttt:tttal ot' stattlror'.v relatiorrship llenlerrt the r\pplie ant trrtd SliSSl. at

7ab r \

I

I(31

Criminal Intent (Mens Rea): No evidence of lraudult:rrt tnterrt c:' personal gain.

Causation: No nexus lretrveen the Applicant and the alleged fi nancial irregularitres,

Even if additional u'itnesses rvere examined, the l)ermallcr)t loss of critical records (N{CB cloctrnrents, SESSI files) attrl the absence of forensic corroboration render furthcr proceedings lutile. The prosectttiotl's case is not merely w(:;lk but rvholly unsubstantiated, resting on speculative assertiorli rather than tangible prooI

G. Thc prosectttiort'* case is not jrrst rveak btrt entirelY non- r'\ lsten t 'l'he ;rcrltritt;rl r',1'tlrc ;\pPlicant is esserrtial to Prevent a gfaYc llllse lf nage o{ .11r'irce, as thc charges arc rrn[ounded, tlre cv rdcnce .is irreparalrl-', tairt trtl, and continuing the proceedings I i .r'trultl constitute an abrtse of the legal process. RecentiY, the of Pakistan, in the case of Ammad' 3 I I o nourable Supreme Cotrlt

Yousafv. The State and another(PLD 2os4 SC 9?3), quashed tlre proceedings against the accused, observing lhat: "The CriminaL Procedurt Code, t 89E ("Cr P.C.") has granted an inherentjurisdicliott h_y,xirtue of .secttons 249-A and 965-K to the trial courts, as the casc . \ / nta.1, be, to acquit an1 or altL accused at any stage of the judicial procbedings for reasons lo be recorded, afier providing an opportttntly of heanng to the parhes. The uords "any stage" used in both lhe sections

?oa

t9l

ittclud.e tlrc stages beforc or afier framing of lhe charge or aJler wherc thc rccordi,tg of somt elit!cticc. Such ltoiiur can only be crurcised because o'f Lack Court is of tlte optniort tlmt no charge could befranud oJlurisdtction; becausc tlrc nateriaL atailable before it is insuf;cientfor

tlte purl>oses.ofconsttttrting ott o;ffenca; that ifcharge is'franed' btl the

thc prosectttion to Court considers it to be grounrlless and to allou of procesS; or tlru.t'tn ' / - 4 continut |;tih tlrc trial'*'ould amottrtt to an abuse of lhc all circumstances, where tlrcre is no probabilil of conviction actu-ced, ci'en a.fielt .firll-Jtedgert trial' Thu'r' if ciratmstances for

,.t':;;i- lhe Court rnust use such powers at atr'1' ,.tarcise of inlttrent pttTt)(t's

b1 the acarsed' stagc oJ llte proceeclitrgs ort tls oit'rt or uport rtn applicatiort \ the parties before proarderl tltat an oltlortrtrtrtt'o.[heartng rc ffirded to i l:

itttAi|. .ttr.\'order. T':' f-tou'tr a''stip:'C to the Courls by the legislatttre \q ts lo .tt'ot,l llp abu.;c oJ 1'roces; o,t tlru Cortrt; to frotect the tntegritl'of o in th.e case tlrc crimtttal lttstrce s',tsterrt; to safeguard a Perst)n inaoh'ed / a.- s *l {q a bu.rbt''seless, mAlrcultts' and .frtaolous crimtnal -[t'ont the agortl' of

prosectttiott; ttr othenttse, t(.) secure tlu etds of lusttce' Tlu etercise of the inh.erent bo:Uj'crs is rn.on.datory in nature, therefore, any departttre therefront ilotdd be a i,iolatton of lhe substantite proaisions of la'-tL anl Court cortsidc.s that the az'ai la b em iaL zs su tcre nlt div tlt l" lht trial Ltdre es to uash the udiciaL roc e din it oes not reclude tlte C rt rotn t.t rctslrL , it s tnherent e o r subse uen \' () I.er

/D

I,

a Jrol

recordin.g some euidence or stqfacin,q an), material ,for the Purf>ose oJ ctrtashing the ?roceedings". The underlining is suppliecl.

?, ln light of the above dlsctrsslorr, it ls elcar that thr cltrtt'gl dgain5t the Applicant is baseless, and proceeding rvith the trial rvouid amount to an abuse of the judicial process' The learned Trial

I

Court failed, to take itrto account the admissions made by the , Complainant/lnvestigating Officer (l.O') during his testimorly'

including cros s-ex amitration, as s'eil as the absetrce of material evidence, iq reaching its clecision. Conseqtrently, the Impugnetl Order isstrer.l by the learrrerl Trial Cotrrt aPPears to be leealll' rrnsrrstainalrle arrd is therefbl,e liable to bc set asicle, ii. Fol thc reas()r)s oLtllttled ahove. the Crirninal Revision Applicatir:r is allorvetl rLs lrrayed fbr. Tire Imprrgncd Order rlate<l 2s,o+.2o22 is herebl'set aside, and the Applicant is acquitted of all cl'rat'ges. C--onseqtren t11', the proceedings against hinr are qtraslrccl.

The Applicant, rvho is present on bail, his bail bond and sirretl' s tand d ischarged

q I)GE

$"- a