Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 1985, heard on 1st March, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 468/471/420‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)‑ Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.249‑A‑‑Appeal against acquittal‑‑Accused acquitted under S. 249‑A of Criminal Procedure Code 1898‑‑Order‑sheet and judgment showing that prosecutor was not heart: before recording acquittal‑‑Trial Court, held, could not acquit accused without hearing prosecutor‑‑Appeal was, therefore, accepted and casa sent back for re‑trial in accordance with law.

Col. A. Rashid for the State.

Muhammad Zahid Abbasi for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 1^st March 1986.

This Criminal Appeal by the State against the acquittal of Zulfiqar Ahmad, respondent under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C., arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Gujranwala Lahore, whereby he on 8‑7‑1984, acquitted Zulfiqar Ahmad of the charge under section 468/471/420, P.P.C. reap with section 5(2) 47: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

2. The learned counsel for 1h.e appellant mainly contended that the learned trial Court had acquitted the accused /respondent under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. without hearing the prosecutor. The learned counsel for respondent has, however, supported the judgment of the trial Court.

3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that from the order‑sheet as well as from the, judgment it appears that the prosecutor was not heard by the A trial Court on 8‑7‑1984 when the respondent was acquitted under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. The relevant provision of law may be reproduced advantageously:‑‑

"Section 249‑A, Cr.P.C.‑‑ Nothing in this Chapter shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from acquitting an accused at any stage of the case if, after hearing the prosecutor and the accused and for reasons to be recorded, he considers that the charge is groundless or that there is no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence."

From the examination of the provision of law reproduced above, it is very much obvious that the learned trial Court could not have acquitted; the accused /respondent under section 249‑A. Cr.P.C. without hearing the prosecutor, Since in the case in hand, the prosecutor was not heard, therefore, there is no option but to accept this appeal.

4. For what has been said above, the appeal is accepted. The order, dated 8‑7‑1984 of the trial Court is hereby set aside and the case is sent back for re‑trial in accordance with law.

S.A. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.