IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, RAWALPINDI

BENCH, RAWALPINDI

Cr. Appeal No. ---------------/2010

Mukhtar Ahmad Khan son of Aziz Ahmad Khan caste Khattar

resident of Usman Khattar Tehsil Taxila, District Rawalpindi.

…. Appellant
Versus
……

1. Saad Asif Khan s/o Asif Khan Caste Khattar resident of Usman

Khattar Tehsil Taxila, District Rawalpindi.

2. The State

..Respondents
 APPEAL UNDER SECTION 417(2) Cr. PC.
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18-06-2010
PASSED BY Mr. AHMAD ARSHAD MEHMOOD
JASRA LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE /
MAGISTRATE SECTION - 30 TAXILA
DISTRICT RAWALPINDI, WHEREBY THE
ACCUSED/RESPONDENT NO. 1 HAS BEEN
ACQUITTED IN CASE FIR NO. 283 DATED
13-07-2005 UNDER SECTION 406 PPC, P.S:
TAXILA DISTRICT RAWALPINDI.

Respectfully submitted:-

BRIEF FACTS:-

Brief facts leading to the instant appeal are that Tractor (Fiat-A-40)
Registered No. AK-2004, Model-1978, Chassis No. 959775,
Engine No. 8045-02-307-921125, along with 2 plough, one blade
valuing Rs. 10,000/-, one Trolley valuing 1,30,000/- was owned by
appellant and his brother namely Khalid Aziz. After the death of
said Khalid Aziz, the same remained parked at his house. On the
visit of appellant and one Nisar, the tractor along with its
accessories was found missing upon which the appellant enquired
from the respondent No. 1 who could not give a satisfactory reply
upon which the appellate got the above mentioned case registered
against him.
2. After completion of all necessary formalities, chalan was
submitted to the court. Learned trial court, after recording
evidences acquitted the accused (respondent No. 1)

3. That the judgment dated 18-06-2010 whereby the

accused/respondent No.1 has been acquitted, is hereby impugned
on the following amongst others;

G R O U N D S:-

a) That the impugned judgment regarding acquittal of

respondent No. 1 is patently illegal and against law and facts of the
case therefore is not sustainable and liable to set aside.

b) That the prosecution proved its case against the

accused/respondent beyond the shadow of doubt, therefore, the
respondent No.1/accused was liable to be convicted and sentenced
for the offence charged but learned trial court gave erroneous
findings and reached to a wrong conclusion by acquitting him.

c) That learned trial court took a wrong inference of the

evidences of PW-3 & 4. As per judgment, the PW-3 categorically
stated that respondent No. 1 was found innocent while the P.W-3 in
examination-in-chief stated that as per his investigation, the
accused (respondent No. 1) was found guilty. Similarly, the learned
trial judge recorded in his judgment that P.W-4 stated that as per
his record, registration book of tractor in dispute was not in the
name of complainant (now appellant) while in fact the P.W-4 in
examination-in-chief stated that as per his report, the registration
was rightly transferred from Rawalpindi in the name of Mukhtar
(appellant). This clearly indicates that the learned trial judge did
not appreciate the evidence in its true perspective. Moreover,
determination of guilt or innocence of accused is domain of only
the courts of law and this sovereign power of courts can never be
permitted to be exercised by police employees or by anyone else.
I.O cannot be an ex-part in the matter of determining the guilt or
innocence of accused whose opinion was permissible for the
purpose under the law of evidence, so, the judgment of trial court
is based upon in-admissible evidence and thus not sustainable in
law.

d) That there was no occasion for the trial court to acquit the
respondent by extending benefit of doubt on just minor grounds
that even not available in evidence.

e) That the learned trial judge has fallen in grave error in

acquitting the respondent No.1 against whom sufficient material
was available on record.

f) That the impugned judgment whereby the respondents No.1

has been acquitted, is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable
to be set-aside and the respondent No.1 is liable to be sentenced
and convicted.

g) That the learned trial court did not exercise its jurisdiction
vested in it and exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it while
acquitting the respondent No.1.

h) That the judgment of trial court is full of surmises and

conjectures which resulted into grave miscarriage of justice.
 It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this appeal may be
accepted; the acquittal order / judgment of the respondent
No.1 passed by the Court of Mr. Ahmad Arshad Mehmood
Jasra learned M.S-30 Taxila on 18-06-2010 may kindly be
set-aside and the respondent No. 1 may be awarded
punishment in accordance with law to meet the ends of
justice.

………..Appellant

Through:-

Dated:- 30-06-2010. Sh. Muhammad Yaqub,

Advocate
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.C. NO. 3911

Certified that as per instructions, this is the first appeal against the
impugned judgment, before this Honorable Court.

Advocate.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, RAWALPINDI
BENCH, RAWALPINDI

Cr. Misc No. --------------------------/2010

in

Cr. Appeal No.----------------------- /2010

Mukhtar Ahmad Khan V/S Saad Asif Khan

District - Rawalpindi
Whether received from - Sh. Muhammad Yaqub,
appellant in person Advocate
or by counsel or by Supreme Court of Pakistan
agent
Charge U/S - 406 PPC
Sentence - Acquitted
From the order of - Mr. Ahmad Arshad Mehmood
Jasra
Magistrate Section-30 Taxila
Claim in Appeal - The appeal may kindly be
accepted and respondent No. 1
may kindly be convicted under
law.
Grounds of appeal attached.
………..Appellant

Through:-

Dated: - -06-2010. Sh. Muhammad Yaqub,

Advocate
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.C. NO. 3911
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, RAWALPINDI
BENCH, RAWALPINDI

Cr. Appeal No. ---------------/2011

Gulfraz Ahmad son of Muhammad Khurshid caste Rajpoot,

resident of House No. CB-219 Mohalla Ismaeel Abad Wah Cantt

Tehsil Taxila, District Rawalpindi.

…. Appellant
Versus
……

1. Asad Baig s/o Anwar Baig Caste Mughal resident of Jolian

Tehsil & District Haripur.

2. The State

..Respondents
 APPEAL UNDER SECTION 417(2) Cr. PC.
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29-04-2011
PASSED BY Mr. AHMAD ARSHAD MEHMOOD
JASRA LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE /
MAGISTRATE SECTION - 30 TAXILA
DISTRICT RAWALPINDI, WHEREBY THE
ACCUSED / RESPONDENT NO. 1 HAS BEEN
ACQUITTED IN CASE FIR NO. 626 DATED
10-11-2007 UNDER SECTION 337-J/380/411/457
PPC, P.S: WAH CANTT DISTRICT
RAWALPINDI.

Respectfully submitted:-

BRIEF FACTS:-

Brief facts leading to the instant appeal are that on 30-10-2007 at

10-30 (p.m), the appellant returned his residence after closing his
shop and took his dinner. The appellant, his brother and other
family members went to their bed rooms. The younger brother
Wajid-ur-Rehman along with father, mother and sister slept in the
bedroom close to the drawing room. The next morning at 6-30, the
appellant got up and went to the room wherein his father and
others had been sleeping the last night and found that all locks of
the room were open and all articles of house were scattered out of
the suit cases. The appellant tried to awaken is father, mother,
brother and sister but remained failed. Upon this, appellant called
for his relatives who came and opined that someone had got eaten
or sprayed upon the all unconscious persons. The police was also
informed. All the victims were rushed to the hospital. On search,
cash amount Rs. 540,000/- and gold ornaments weighing 9 Tolas
were found missing from the Almirah which was locked and its
key was in the inner pocket of father’s jacket. Some un-known
person or persons took out the key from the pocket of father and
committed theft. Earlier, a similar theft was committed in the
house of appellant and accused remained un-traceable. On the
complaint of appellant, the above mentioned case was registered
against un-known person.

2. Afterwards, the respondent No. 1 was arrested and an

amount of Rs. 300,000/- was also recovered from him. On
submission of challan, learned trial court framed charge. The
respondent No. 1 did not plead guilty and evidence was called.
After arguments of counsels of the parties, learned trial court
acquitted the accused (respondent No. 1)

3. That the judgment dated 29-04-2011 whereby the

accused/respondent No.1 has been acquitted, is hereby impugned
on the following amongst others;

G R O U N D S:-

a) That the impugned judgment regarding acquittal of

respondent No. 1 is patently illegal and against law and facts of the
case therefore is not sustainable and liable to set aside.

b) That the prosecution proved its case against the

accused/respondent beyond the shadow of doubt, therefore, the
respondent No.1/accused was liable to be convicted and sentenced
for the offence charged but learned trial court gave erroneous
findings and reached to a wrong conclusion by acquitting him.

c) That learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence in its
true perspective and took a wrong inference of prosecution
evidence.

d) That there was no occasion for the trial court to acquit the
respondent by extending benefit of doubt on just minor grounds
that even not available in evidence.

e) That the learned trial judge has fallen in grave error in

acquitting the respondent No.1 against whom sufficient material in
the shape of recovery was available on record.

f) That the impugned judgment whereby the respondents No.1

has been acquitted, is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable
to be set-aside and the respondent No.1 is liable to be sentenced
and convicted.

g) That the learned trial court did not exercise its jurisdiction
vested in it and exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it while
acquitting the respondent No.1.

h) That the judgment of trial court is full of surmises and

conjectures which resulted into grave miscarriage of justice.

i) That impugned judgment is result of mi-reading and non-

reading of material available on record.
j) That learned trial court did not view the case from its right
angle and reached a wrong conclusion.

k) That the trial court has passed the impugned judgment on

assumptions and presumptions.

l) That impugned judgment is not a judicial speaking judgment

and is liable to be set aside.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this appeal may be

accepted; the acquittal order / judgment dated 29-04-2011
passed by the Court of Mr. Ahmad Arshad Mehmood Jasra
learned M.S-30 Taxila acquitting the respondent No.1, may
kindly be set-aside and the respondent No. 1 may be
awarded punishment in accordance with law to meet the
ends of justice.
………..Appellant

Through:-

Dated: - 04-05-2011. Sh. Muhammad Yaqub,

Advocate
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.C. No. 16462

Certified that as per instructions, this is the first appeal against the
impugned judgment, before this Honorable Court.
Advocate.

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, RAWALPINDI

BENCH, RAWALPINDI
 Cr. Misc No. --------------------------/2011

in

Cr. Appeal No.----------------------- /2011

Gulfraz Ahmad V/S Asad Baig etc

District - Rawalpindi
Whether received from - Sh. Muhammad Yaqub,
appellant in person Advocate
or by counsel or by Supreme Court of Pakistan
agent
Charge U/S - 337-J/380/411/457 PPC
Sentence - Acquitted
From the order of - Mr. Ahmad Arshad Mehmood
Jasra
Magistrate Section-30 Taxila
Claim in Appeal - The appeal may kindly be
accepted and respondent No. 1
may kindly be convicted under
law.
Grounds of appeal attached.
………..Appellant

Through:-

Dated: - 04-05-2011. Sh. Muhammad Yaqub,

Advocate
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.C. NO. 16462