Summary: (1) A complete & comprehensive procedure of a complaint filed under section 133 Cr.P.C enunciated and highlighted.2) A Court of law or any authority who is seized of any Judicial or quasi judicial proceedings and whose interim order has been challenged before the higher Court/forum shall not stopped the regular proceedings in the main case unless & until such pending proceedings are stayed by the higher forum though a specific & clear order.3) All Judicial forums are constitutionally bound to take the proceeding pending before them to its logical conclusion with full application of mind. -----Background: The appellant filed a criminal appeal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (CrPC), challenging the acquittal of the respondents by the Judicial Magistrate, Buner. The respondents were acquitted under Section 249-A CrPC in a case registered under Sections 452, 506, 337 L(ii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The case stemmed from allegations of criminal intimidation, firing to terrorize the complainant's son, and assaulting the complainant with knives and sticks, resulting in injuries. The dispute arose from a disagreement over cutting trees. -----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court's acquittal of the respondents under Section 249-A CrPC was lawful and justified. -----2- Whether the trial court denied due process by failing to record essential prosecution evidence. -----3- Whether the trial court prematurely acquitted the respondents without hearing key witnesses, including the doctor and Investigating Officer. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Premature Acquittal: The trial court entertained the respondents' application under Section 249-A CrPC midway through the trial, acquitting them without recording the statements of crucial prosecution witnesses, including the doctor who examined the injuries and the Investigating Officer. The court’s decision was deemed hasty and contrary to the principles of justice. --Violation of Due Process: Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan, which guarantees the right to a fair trial, was cited. The appellant/complainant was denied the opportunity to fully prosecute his case, as the trial court failed to procure essential evidence. The court emphasized that it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor and the court to ensure the attendance of official witnesses for recording their statements. The trial court’s reliance on assumptions and presumptions, without allowing the prosecution to present all its evidence, violated the complainant's fundamental rights. --Role of the Trial Court: The trial court has a responsibility to assess the evidence impartially and not to resort to shortcuts. By failing to record evidence critical to the prosecution’s case, the trial court's decision lacked legal sustainability. --Outcome of the Appeal: The Peshawar High Court observed that the acquittal under Section 249-A CrPC was premature and not in accordance with law. The acquittal order dated 15.07.2021 was set aside, and the case was remanded for completion of the trial after recording the necessary evidence, ensuring compliance with due process. -----Citations/Precedents: Section 249-A CrPC: Provides for acquittal if, at any stage of the case, the evidence presented is insufficient for conviction. The court highlighted that this provision must not be applied prematurely or without recording essential evidence. Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973: Recognizes the right to due process and a fair trial as a fundamental right, which was violated in this case.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 417 & 161---Qatl-i-amd and common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal--- Delayed supplementary statement---Effect---Complainant assailed the acquittal of accused persons--- Complainant had witnessed the occurrence and had reported the matter promptly against unknown persons, but no description of the accused persons was mentioned in his written report---Supplementary statement was filed by complainant after 62 days wherein he nominated the accused---Supplementary statement had lost its evidentiary value in the eyes of law, as in such period consultation and concoction could not be ruled out, as besides the complainant had initially lodged the FIR against unknown persons---Two of the alleged witnesses of the incident had not appeared despite issuance of bailable and non-bailable warrants---Another alleged eye-witness had got recorded her statement after 26 days of the incident without any explanation and there was nothing on record to show as to why she remained mum for such period---Statement of such witness was not admissible in the eyes of law---Since description of accused persons was not given in the FIR, therefore, there arose no question of identification of accused persons---Appeal was dismissed. Shahid Hussain alias Multani v. The State and others 2011 SCMR 1673 and Rahat Ali v. The State 2010 SCMR 584 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 417---Appeal against acquittal---Scope---Law regards the conviction of a single innocent person as infinitely more serious than the acquittal of many guilty persons---Appeal against acquittal is an extraordinary remedy and is restricted to cases of a grave miscarriage of justice---Accused is presumed to be innocent in law and if after the regular trial he is acquitted, he earns a double presumption of innocence and there is a heavy onus on the prosecution to rebut the said presumption---Under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan right to life and liberty is a fundamental right guaranteed to a person, therefore, once an accused, duly tried and acquitted by the court of competent jurisdiction, his acquittal cannot be easily interfered with---Moreover, very exceptional and compelling reasons are required to dislodge the double presumption of innocence attached to that person, which he acquires after his acquittal. (c) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Scope---If there is a circumstance, which creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused would be entitled to the benefit of such doubt, not as a matter of grace and concession, but as a matter of right---Such principle is based on the maxim; it is better that ten guilty persons be acquitted rather than one innocent person be convicted. Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2018 SCMR 772 rel.

Summary: Section(s) of law; Section 417 Cr. PC.1. Association of private persons to recovery of narcotic substance wouldlend credibility to the proceedings.2. Where a Seizing Police Officer put the monogram of another PoliceOfficial on a parcel containing narcotic substance, the recoveryproceedings will become seriously doubtful.

Summary: Section(s) of law; Section 417 Cr. PC.1. The Investigating Officer himself did not examine the narcoticsubstances, as the case property, taking it for granted that theparcel containing nothing but charas as the Seizing Officershowed it. The Investigating Officer did not discharge his dutyindependently.

Summary: Acquittal granted ---- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 417 & 342 — Appeal against acquittal — Scope — Principles restated — Presumption of double innocence reinforced — Interference by appellate court permissible only if the judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or based on gross misreading or non-reading of material evidence — Mere formulation of a different opinion is not a ground to disturb acquittal. Rel: PLD 1985 SC 11; 2008 SCMR 336; 2009 SCMR 288; 2011 SCMR 554; 2013 SCMR 565; 2014 SCMR 749; 2017 SCMR 1639; 1995 SCMR 635; 1998 SCMR 1281. (b) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, Ss. 302, 395, 396, 148, 149 — Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, S. 7 — Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, S. 17(4) — Murder, robbery, terrorism — Acquittal upheld — Incident involving attack on police vehicle, resulting in deaths and robbery — Contradictions in ocular account regarding presence and identification of accused — Evidence found unworthy of reliance — Doubts arising from inconsistencies in statements of injured eye-witnesses and lack of corroboration — Recovery of weapons or explosives not proved — No forensic or medical evidence collected. (c) Identification — Doubtful identification at night under panic — Eye-witnesses claimed to recognize 18 accused by name, parentage, and residence despite being under attack in a tarpaulin-covered vehicle — Such precise identification held implausible — No source of prior familiarity with accused shown — Identification rejected for want of reliability. (d) Evidence — Corroboration — Rule of caution — Court reiterated that where eye-witnesses are injured or related and contradictions exist, corroboration becomes essential — No recovery or independent corroborative evidence produced in support of prosecution version — Nexus with banned organizations alleged but not substantiated with any admissible material. Rel: PLD 2002 SC 643. (e) Delay and abscondence — Abscondence of respondents for years not held as conclusive of guilt — No recovery during arrest or on pointation — Abscondence alone insufficient to establish criminal liability. (f) Investigation — Serious flaws — No recovery of hand grenade shells, no post-mortem of deceased officials, no blood-stained earth collected — Crime scene processing held incomplete and unprofessional — Failure to conduct basic forensics undermined prosecution case. (g) Equality before law — Co-accused tried earlier and acquitted on same evidence — No appeal filed against their acquittal — Present respondents placed on equal footing — State’s selective challenge unjustified. Disposition: Appeal dismissed — Acquittal upheld — Trial Court’s judgment held well-reasoned and supported by evidence — Interference declined.

Summary: On a careful scrutiny of above provision in our view it is clear that the prescribed period of Limitation of thirty days and sixty days respectively is available only for those criminal acquittal appeals which are filed by the complainant or person aggrieved respectively. We have found no specific period of Limitation under the amended provision as regards the acquittal appeals under sub-section (1) to section 417, Cr.P.C. is prescribed. We have also examined the Article 157 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which reads as under:- Description of Appeals Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run 157. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, from an order of acquittal. Six months The date of the order appealed from.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 417(2A)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-A, 337-F, 337-Q & 34---Appeal againstacquittal---"Person aggrieved"--- Scope--- Appellant/ complainant, being father of injured person, filedappeal against acquittal under S. 417(2A), Cr.P.C.---"Person aggrieved" was a person who was primarilyinterested in conviction of the accused because he was allegedly caused hurt---Word "person aggrieved"was not open to the extent of including every person who was a member of society or claimed to beinterested in the conviction of an accused person in cases of hurt---Legal heirs in murder cases had theright to participate in court proceedings and impugn the judgment if they felt themselves aggrieved byit---Complainant of the case was not present at the spot rather he was informed in respect of the allegedoccurrence---Complainant was neither abused, beaten nor threatened by the accused, thus, under thecircumstances, father of victim was not competent to file appeal against acquittal under S.417(2A),Cr.P.C.---Appeal was dismissed.Mir Gul v. Abdul Karim 1999 PCr.LJ 1507 rel.(b) Words and phrases-------Person aggrieved--- Meaning.Black's Law Dictionary ref

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: An appellant filed a criminal appeal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) challenging the acquittal of certain respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge. The case originated from an FIR registered under Sections 506/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and Section 11 of the Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The appellant alleged that the respondents forcibly abducted his niece at gunpoint. The police later deleted Section 11 of the Zina Ordinance based on a statement purportedly made by the niece, claiming she was not abducted and was lawfully married to one of the respondents. The appellant contended that the statement was fraudulent and that the respondents should be convicted. -----Issues: 1- Was the acquittal of the respondents by the trial court based on a correct assessment of the evidence? 2- Were the statements made by the alleged victim credible and consistent? 3- Did the trial court's judgment involve any misreading or non-appraisal of evidence? 4- Should the Federal Shariat Court interfere with the trial court’s decision to acquit the respondents? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court upheld the trial court's decision to acquit the respondents. The Court found that the alleged victim had provided multiple contradictory statements, creating reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case. The law requires that any doubt be resolved in favor of the accused. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof in criminal cases rests on the prosecution, which must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court's judgment was found to be well-reasoned and did not suffer from misreading or non-appraisal of evidence, thus not warranting interference. The appeal was dismissed. -----Citations/Precedents: PLD 1994 SC 31 2010 SCMR 1592 2017 SCMR 633

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302, 324, 97 & 100---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd---Appeal againstacquittal---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Right of private defence of thebody extending to cause death---Scope---Prosecution case was that a quarrel had taken placebetween deceased and injured, due to which, exchange of firing was made between both ofthem and one person died---Record showed that the prosecution in order to establish thecharge had produced the evidence of twelve witnesses, but the statements of all the witnesseswere based upon hearsay evidence and the prosecution had failed to produce any singledirect or circumstantial evidence in support of charge---Admittedly, the law was set onmotion on the basis of fard-e-bayan of the complainant/Police Officer, who appeared in theTrial Court, but the fact remained that he had not witnessed the crime directly---Statement ofcomplainant, therefore, was not helpful to the case of prosecution---Record transpired that onthe day of occurrence, the deceased entered the jewelry shop of accused/respondent, took outpistol and handed over an empty bag to accused/respondent for putting gold ornamentstherein, accused/respondent made resistance and during exchange of firing both the deceasedand the accused/respondent received bullet injuries on their persons---Licensed pistol wasrecovered from the accused/respondent, while an unlicensed pistol was recovered from thepossession of the deceased---Recovery of unlicensed pistol from the possession of thedeceased depicted of his malice intention for committing decoity---Circumstances suggestedthat accused/respondent had used the right of his self-defence as envisaged under provisionsof Ss. 97 & 100, P.P.C.---Nothing incriminating had come on record that theaccused/respondent in any manner had misused the right of self-defence---Entry of deceasedin armed condition in jewelry shop of the accused/respondent was certainly not for any goodreason but for illicit purposes---Accused/respondent could not be convicted for such chargeswhen all the facts and circumstances clearly suggested that the deceased entered into theshop for dacoity---Trial Court had rightly recorded the acquittal order in favour ofaccused/respondent---Order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court was neither arbitrary,capricious, fanciful nor contrary to the evidence on record warranting interference by HighCourt---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 100---Self-defence of property and person, right of---Scope---Law had given right tothe occupant of any property to expel the intruder or trespasser---If the intruder or trespasserhad made his entry for illicit purpose then the right of self-defence of property and personwas further fortified even to the extent of causing death of intruder or trespasser if he did notretreat after having been told or alarmed to retreat---Right of self defence was recognized bylaw, but it was to be exercised if circumstances so warrant---Every citizen was entitled toresist attack and defend himself and his property when he or his property faced the dangerand State machinery was not readily available---Citizen was entitled to protect himself andhis property, in circumstances---Legally the right of self-defence would arise where danger to person or property was imminent and would remain available as long as such dangerexists.Mazhar Iqbal v. The State 2017 SCMR 2036 rel.(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 417--- Appeal against acquittal--- Presumption--- Double presumption of innocence isattached to the order of acquittal and interference is unwarranted unless the acquittal isarbitrary, capricious, fanciful or against the record.

Summary: The case involved allegations of misappropriation of public money by the manager of a branch of the Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank. The prosecution's case was based on a complaint by the Zonal Chief, alleging misappropriation of funds and theft of demand draft forms. The trial faced delays, and the judgment of acquittal was based on the prosecution's failure to complete evidence after four years and doubts about the probability of conviction. The appellant challenged the judgment, arguing that the delay was not the prosecution's fault, and the evidence, including testimonies and documents, supports the charges. The respondents argued against the maintainability of the appeal. The judgment addressed the maintainability issue, citing previous cases and ruling that a private person, under Section 417(2A) Cr.P.C., can appeal against an order of acquittal by a Special Judge. The court then delved into the merits of the case, acknowledging the importance of a speedy trial. The appeal ws allowed, the judgment is set aside, and the case is remanded to the Special Court to continue the trial promptly.