Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ----S. 249-A—Scope and pre-requisites—Magistrate’s power to acquit at any stage—Where the available record shows a private land dispute, no recovery, complainant’s persistent non-appearance to support the charge, and no reasonable prospect of conviction, an order under S.249-A Cr.P.C. is a lawful exercise of jurisdiction. The provision may be invoked to prevent fruitless trials; it is not necessary to record full evidence if the charge appears groundless or conviction unlikely on the admitted/material facts. (b) Appeal against acquittal ----Standard of interference—Double presumption of innocence—An acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence; the appellate court will not substitute its view unless the impugned order is perverse, arbitrary, based on gross misreading/non-reading, or in patent violation of law. Mere possibility of a different view on re-appraisal is insufficient. Reliance: State v. Abdul Khaliq (PLD 2011 SC 554). (c) Criminal justice principles ----“Accused is the favourite child of law”—Rationale—Courts ensure fair trial and due process; sparing the guilty is preferred to condemning an innocent. The maxim does not entail undue favour but safeguards against erroneous convictions and defective investigations. Reliance: Muhammad Riaz v. Khurram Shehzad (2024 SCMR 51). (d) Civil dispute overlay & mala fides ----Pending civil litigation over title/possession—Criminal proceedings arising from possession tussles require cautious scrutiny; additions of accused by supplementary statement, without independent corroboration, and absence of eye-witness testimony by the complainant weigh against likelihood of conviction. (e) Evidence—Hearsay; non-production; no recovery ----Complainant not an eye-witness; narration premised on information from labourers—Failure to secure presence/coercive process for PWs; no weapon or contraband recovered—Such deficiencies undermine the substratum of charges under Ss. 440, 506, 148 & 149 PPC and justify recourse to S.249-A. (f) Practice & procedure ----Notice and opportunity—Where prosecution/complainant, despite knowledge of FIR and proceedings, does not pursue evidence, and nothing on record suggests a realistic prospect of conviction, the trial court’s early termination of proceedings does not violate audi alteram partem. (g) Disposition — Criminal Appeal dismissed; order dated 28.11.2023 under S.249-A Cr.P.C. acquitting respondents maintained.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 417---Appeal against acquittal---Principles---Scope of interference by appellate court---Appellant assailed judgment whereby accused were acquitted of charges under Ss. 452/440, P.P.C.---Held, that in criminal jurisprudence, burden of proof squarely lies upon the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt---Appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against acquittal should not substitute its own view merely because another possible view could have been taken on the evidence---Unless findings of the trial court are shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or based on misreading or non-reading of evidence, interference is not warranted---Trial Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and found that prosecution failed to discharge its burden---Appeal against acquittal, therefore, liable to be dismissed. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 452 & 440---House-trespass and mischief---Ingredients---Prosecution evidence---Reliability---No eye-witness produced---Complainant not present at the spot---Servant (PW) admitted absence at the time of main occurrence and ignorance of ownership sequence---Witness admitted both complainant and accused owned land in same Khasra numbers and that accused’s sale deed was prior in time---Investigation Officer admitted no independent resident supported prosecution version and no recovery was effected from accused---Held, that prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused had committed criminal trespass or mischief---Trial Court rightly acquitted respondents. (c) Evidence--- ----Appreciation of evidence---Onus on prosecution to prove its case on its own strength---Failure to produce material witnesses---Effect---Eye-witness (alleged abductee) Muhammad Amin not examined and material witnesses, including bailiff and Investigating Officer, not produced---Admitted contradictions and lack of corroboration rendered prosecution case doubtful---Held, benefit of doubt must go to accused---Reliance placed on Ali Ahmad and another v. The State and others (PLD 2020 SC 201). (d) Criminal trial--- ----Acquittal---Presumption of innocence strengthened by acquittal---Held, once trial court has acquitted accused after proper appraisal of evidence, presumption of innocence stands fortified and appellate court should be slow to interfere unless findings are patently perverse or against record---Impugned judgment upheld---Appeal dismissed. Disposition: Appeal dismissed; acquittal maintained. Cited Case: • Ali Ahmad and another v. The State and others PLD 2020 SC 201.a

Summary: Bail granted---Background: The applicants, four individuals, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.165/2022, registered at Police Station Mehar, involving charges under sections 440, 114, 147, 148, 149, 504, 337-A(i), and 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). Their initial request for bail was denied by the I-Additional Session Judge, Mehar, on 01.07.2022. ----Issues: 1- Whether the applicants are entitled to pre-arrest bail considering the nature of the charges against them. 2- Whether the applicants fall within the exceptions that would justify the denial of bail under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The offenses for which the applicants are charged carry punishments of less than ten years, which do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC. The general principle is that granting bail in such cases is the rule, and refusal is the exception. This principle is supported by several precedents from the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan. The prosecution failed to demonstrate that any of the exceptions meriting denial of bail applied to the applicants. The exceptions include the likelihood of abscondence, tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, or repeating the offense. There was no material evidence presented to substantiate these grounds. The court reiterated that while deciding bail applications, deeper appreciation of the evidence is not permissible. The decision should be based tentatively on the material available on record. The court allowed the bail application, confirming the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the applicants on the same terms and conditions. The complainant was given the liberty to seek cancellation of the bail upon receipt of the final medical certificate if it indicated offenses carrying capital punishment. ----Citations/Precedents: Tarique Bashir V. State (PLD 1995 SC 34) Zafar Iqbal V. Muhammad Anwar (2009 SCMR 1488) Muhammad Tanveer V. State (PLD 2017 SC 733) Shaikh Abdul Raheem V. The State etc (2021 SCMR 822) Muhammad Imran V. The State (PLD 2021 SC-903)