State vs Zakir Ullah

2012 P Cr. L J 903 [Peshawar]

Before Miftah ud Din Khan and Waqar Ahmad Seth, JJ

THE STATE through Prosecutor-General Accountability---Appellant

versus

ZAKIR ULLAH---Respondent

Ehtesab Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2011, decided on 25th January, 2012.

(a)National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)---

----Ss. 9, 10 & 32---Corruption and corrupt practices---Appeal against acquittal---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Allegation against accused (respondent) was that during his service he had acquired movable and immovable assets in his own name and in the name of his spouse, dependents and benamidars, which were disproportionate to his known means of income---Trial Court acquitted the accused from charges levelled against him---Validity---Trial Court had appraised the entire evidence in its true perspective and benefit of doubt had been extended to accused, which was supported by material on record---Trial Court had dealt with the matter in a proper and reasonable manner; had not misread the evidence or committed any illegality or irregularity and referred to each and every document on record and discussed the same in a legal manner and drew fair conclusions---Acquittal order of Trial Court was neither perverse nor illegal and warranted no interference---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly.

(b)National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)---

----S. 32--- Appeal against acquittal--- Appraisal of evidence---Principles---Evidence in cases of acquittal and conviction is appraised in different perspectives; in appeal against acquittal liberty of person is involved and when anything to the contrary has not been brought on record, then acquittal order cannot be interfered with by the court.

Azeem Dad, Prosecutor NAB for Appellant.

ORDER

WAQAR AHMAD SETH, J.---Impugned herein is the judgment of acquittal dated 30-6-2011 in Reference No.1 of 2007 passed by learned Judge, Accountability Court No.IV, Peshawar whereby the accused/respondent was acquitted of the charges levelled against him.

2.Facts of the case are that the accused/respondent joined Government service as Inspector, Federal Security Force in 1974 and after its demobilization, he joined the Immigration and Passport. Office as Upper Division Clerk on 8-2-1977 and subsequently was promoted as Deputy Assistant Director on 23-7-2003. It has been alleged in the Reference that during his service he acquired movable and immovable assets in his own name and in the name of his spouse, dependents and benamidars, which are disproportionate to his known sources of income.

3.During investigation, the I.O. collected evidence and compiled the same in the shape of Final Investigation Report, wherein, details of moveable/immovable properties/assets in his own name and in the name of his spouse, dependents and benamidars were given, which are fully described in the Reference as well as in the impugned judgment. Subsequently, the I.O. prepared chart of his income/expenditure of the accused/respondent, which is also mentioned in the Reference as well as in the impugned judgment. Thereafter, the I.O. submitted his Final Report Exh.P.W.15 to Director-General, National Accountability Bureau, Khyber Pukhtunkhwa, who sent the same to the learned trial Court for adjudication.

4.At the trial, the accused/respondent was put on notice and requirement of section 265-C, Cr.P.C. was complied with. The accused was charge-sheeted, wherein, he denied the allegations and claimed trial. In order to prove the allegations against the accused/respondent, the prosecution produced 15 witnesses in all and after hearing learned counsel for the parties and

appraising the evidence on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent from the charges levelled against him through the impugned judgment dated 30-6-2011 of learned Judge, Accountability Court No.IV, Khyber Pukhtunkhwa, Peshawar, hence the appeal in hand.

5.Mr. Azeem Dad, learned Prosecutor NAB for appellant contended that the prosecution produced tangible and cogent evidence of disinterested witnesses against the accused/respondent in support of its case, which has not been relied upon by learned trial court for no good reason; that the statements of P.Ws., who supported the case of prosecution, were discarded and the reasons rendered therefor are not convincing and prudent to judicial mind; that the reasons recorded by learned trial court through the impugned judgment are based on conjectures and surmises as the accused/respondent failed to bring on record any small piece of evidence, which could show that he was falsely implicated in the instant case with mala fide intention; that oral as well as documentary evidence produced by prosecution has established the guilt of accused/respondent, which has been discarded for no valid and sound reason; that the evidence has not been appraised in a proper and legal manner as prescribed by law, thus, the acquittal order is bad in law merits reversal.

6.The learned trial Court appraised the entire evidence in its true perspective, which culminated in acquittal of the accused/respondent. It is settled law that evidence in the cases of acquittal and conviction is appraised in different perspective. In the instant case benefit of doubt has been extended to accused/respondent, which is supported by material on record. The entire evidence was reappraised but nowhere it was found that the learned trial Court has misread the same or committed any illegality or irregularity through the impugned judgment. In appeal against acquittal liberty of person is involved and when anything to the contrary has not been brought on record, then the acquittal order cannot be interfered with by this court. The learned trial Court has dealt with the matter in a proper and reasonable manner. The learned trial Court referred to each and every document on record and discussed the same in a legal manner and drawn therefrom fair conclusion. The acquittal order is neither perverse nor illegal, hence the same warrants no indulgence by this court in appellate jurisdiction.

For the above mentioned reasons, this appeal has no merit, which is dismissed in limine.

M.W.A./28/P Appeal dismissed.