Criminal Appeal 842/2024 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi

Sindh High Court · 2025 · Before Jan Ali Junejo

M/s Muhammad Khan Lakho advocate for appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 01/2025 alongwith M/s. Riaz Ali and Abdul Samad advocates. Pir Muhammad Shah DAG. Complainant present in person. --------------------- It is alleged that appellants except in Appeal No. 842/2024 were bank officials in collusion with each other unlawfully and illegal withdrew amounts from different accounts by using bogus cheques in Branch Banking Operation System, hence instant case has been registered against them vide Crime No. 23/2013 for offences punishable under Sections 409, 468, 471, 477-A, 109, 34 PPC registered at P.S FIA, CBC, Karachi.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants in all appeals contend that trial Court has failed to appraise and evaluate the evidence, although 12 witnesses were examined and documentary evidence was produced at trial, but none has been referred in the impugned judgment while convicting the appellants, therefore, this is a fit case for remand. Besides, they contend that appellants were on bail in trial Court. Learned DAG and complainant present agreed with this factual aspect and consented that this case may be remanded back to the trial Court to hear all the parties afresh and thereafter passed a fresh judgment.

3. We have also examined the impugned judgment carefully. From perusal of record, it reflects that learned trial Judge produced investigation report with the role each accused but failed to discuss/evaluate the evidence according to settled principles of law. Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, guarantees due process of law as one of the fundamental right of every person, however, in the present case due process of law has been denied to the appellants by not appreciating the evidence adduced at trial, thus the appellants have been deprived of the prescribed process of the law. Denial of the fundamental right of fair trial and due process for the detained citizens is in contravention of law. Hence, the impugned judgment cannot be maintained as the same has caused serious prejudice to the rights of the accused.

4. Accordingly, all captioned appeals are allowed in terms of that impugned judgment is set aside, case is remanded back to learned trial Court for fresh hearing and decision thereon. Since appellants were on bail therefore, judicialproprietary demands that appellants shall be treated on bail subject to furnishing fresh surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- each with P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The captioned appeals are accordingly disposed of in the above terms. JUDGE JUDGE SAJID

Opening of the judgment. Loading the full judgment on LexPK…