| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 3455 2025 SLD 3455 = 2025 SHC 1759 |
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. S-96 of 2023
Ali Haider “Adaâ€-J
Mr. Hamayoun Shaikh, Advocate for appellant. Mr. Qurban Ali Memon, Advocate for
Respondent No.2
Abdul Latif
VS
The State and another
Law: Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, (XI of 2016)
Section: 15 and 17
Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section: 265-C,342
Summary
The appellant challenged the acquittal of Respondent No. 2, Ahmed Ali Shaikh, in a gas theft case under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016. The trial court acquitted the accused despite prosecution evidence including eyewitness testimony, photographic evidence, recovery of items, and an admission of ownership by the accused during his Section 342 Cr.P.C statement. The acquittal was challenged on grounds of misreading and non-appreciation of material evidence. The appeal court found that the trial court made serious factual and legal errors, including reliance on two persons declared hostile witnesses who were never part of the record, and reference to an unrelated statute (Manpuri Gutka Act, 2019). This constituted a failure in judicial reasoning. The appeal court partially allowed the appeal by setting aside the acquittal and remanding the case for fresh trial with directions for reappraisal of all evidence and ensuring a fair trial under principles of natural justice.
Core Points
| No. | Core Point |
|---|---|
| 1 | Respondent No. 2 was acquitted by the trial court under Sections 15 and 17 of the Gas Theft Act 2016. |
| 2 | Prosecution evidence included eyewitnesses, photographic proof, recovery of generator and materials. |
| 3 | Accused admitted ownership of recovered items in his statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C. |
| 4 | Trial Court relied erroneously on non-existent hostile witnesses (Zubair Ahmed and Ashique Hussain). |
| 5 | Trial Court referred to an unrelated statute (Manpuri Gutka Act, 2019), showing confusion in law. |
| 6 | Misreading and non-reading of evidence by trial court amounted to miscarriage of justice. |
| 7 | Appeal Court held that accused is entitled to a fair trial, and complainant to fair adjudication. |
| 8 | Case remanded to trial court for fresh decision and reappraisal of evidence without influence by previous findings. |
| 9 | Directions issued for adherence to principles of natural justice and opportunity for all parties to argue. |
| 10 | The accused to appear before trial court on 12.07.2025 and maintain surety unless discharged. |
Law and Sections in Table Form
| Law/Statute | Section(s) | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 | Sections 15 and 17 | Offences related to theft of gas and illegal connections; punishment for gas theft offenses. |
| Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) | Section 265-C | Providing copies of documents to the accused for trial preparation. |
| Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) | Section 342 | Recording the accused’s statement and defense in court during trial proceedings. |
| Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) | ||
| Case Law References | - | Mst. Gulshan Bibi v. Muhammad Sadiq (PLD 2016 SC 769) - principles of fair trial and evidence |
| Case Law References | Mst. Naseema Bibi v. Murad (2021 YLR 1243 FSC) | |
| Case Law References | Aijaz Ahmed Bhatti v. Muhammad Uris Meerani (2024 YLR 1233 Sindh) |
J U D G M E N T