ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that interference in an acquittal judgment is found to be rare unless some glaring errors of law and fact are shown by the prosecution to demonstrate that the acquittal judgment was perfunctory with shocking conclusion.
A two-member SC bench comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi issued detailed reasoning in an appeal filed against the Judgment dated October 17, 2022, passed by the Sindh High Court at Karachi in Criminal Acquittal Appeal of Altaf Yousuf versus the State through Additional Director FIA, Passport Circle, Karachi.
The court through a short order passed on December 24, 2025 had accepted the appeal of the petitioner whereby the impugned judgment passed by the SHC on October 17, 2022 in Criminal Acquittal Appeal No256/2007 was set aside and the order dated June 21, 2006 passed by the Court of 5th Judicial Magistrate Malir Karachi in Case No51/2006 (FIR No50/2006 registered under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 and 109 PPC) was restored.
The-seven-page detailed judgment, authored by Justice Muhamamd Ali Mazhar, held that the high court, while reversing the acquittal, did not advert to any cogent or solid ground for its reversal and remanding the matter to the trial court after a long period of time.
“No independent application of mind seems to have been applied to evaluate the trial court order but the acquittal order was set aside in a slipshod manner without scrutiny of record or incriminating material, which if at all or at the best, available for indictment of the petitioner who was acquitted in both the cases,” says the detailed judgment.
The court noted that in the case in hand, it is gleaned from record that no statement under Section 164 of CrPC of co-accused was recorded. The court held that the presumption of innocence is constituent of a fair trial and also foundation of our criminal administration justice system wherein it is obligatory for the prosecution to prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the incriminating material/evidence should be so convincing and logical in which no other inference could be drawn except the guilt of accused.
“The judges act out as the concierge of law and mere indictment cannot be treated as evidence of guilt unless the burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt is discharged by the prosecution,” says the judgment.
According to the prosecution, in FIR No. 50/2006 dated February 1, 2006, the accused allegedly forged passports and documents to help Mst Hira travel abroad.
Separate challans were submitted for offences under PPC and the Emigration Ordinance. The petitioner was acquitted by both the Judicial Magistrate (21-6-2006) and Special Judge (6-12-2017). However, the State’s acquittal appeal was later allowed by the high court on 17-10-2022, which set aside the petitioner’s acquittal and remanded the case for trial before the judicial magistrate.
The court noted that the petitioner’s counsel argued that the judgment was based on misreading and ignoring material evidence, stressing that the petitioner had already been acquitted in the main case and no appeal was filed by the State. It was further argued that there was no sufficient evidence to prove fraud or cheating beyond reasonable doubt.
“The deputy attorney general contended that prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence supported the case, incriminating material was recovered on the petitioner’s pointation, and the trial court wrongly acquitted him under Section 249-A CrPC without properly determining his role,” says the judgment.
