| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 4627 = 2026 SLD 4627 = 2026 PLJ 176 |
Sindh High Court
Crl. Rev. Appln. No. 14 of 2015
Presented By: Naimatullah Phulpoto and Amjad Ali Sahito JUDGES
Mr. Khadim Hussain Addl. P.G. for State. Mr. Saathi M. Ishaque Advocate for
Respondents. Date of hearing: 6.11.2023.
Crl. Rev. Appln. No. 14 of 2015
Presented By: Naimatullah Phulpoto and Amjad Ali Sahito JUDGES
Mr. Khadim Hussain Addl. P.G. for State. Mr. Saathi M. Ishaque Advocate for
Respondents. Date of hearing: 6.11.2023.
STATE through Prosecutor General, Sindh, Karachi--Applicant
VERSUS
M/S. DRUG CHANNEL (through Management), Hyderabad and others--Respondents
Law: Drugs Act, 1976
Section: 31(7-A)
Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section: 435 , 439
Drugs Act, 1976 (XXXI of 1976)-- ----S. 31(7-A)--Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898), Ss. 435 & 439--Acquittal appeal was time-barred--Revision of--This Acquittal Appeal is barred by more than 11 months--Delay in filing of acquittal appeal cannot be condoned unless it is shown that state was precluded from filing appeal in time due to some act of acquitted respondents or by some circumstances of a compelling nature, beyond control of State--Reason for taking strict view is that in most jurisdictions an acquittal, once recorded by a competent Court is final and matter cannot be reopened at instance of any party including State--Under law, an acquittal can be challenged in certain circumstances, but if it is not challenged within period allowed by law it becomes final--In these circumstances, it is only just and proper that appeal against acquittal must not be entertained if it is filed beyond time, unless it be shown that state was prevented from moving same by an act of acquitted accused or by some circumstance of a compelling nature beyond control of state--On point of limitation, acquittal appeal having been filed after delay of more than 11 months, have created valuable rights in favour of respondents--Scope of interference in appeal against acquittal by this Court is most narrow and limited, because in an acquittal presumption of innocence is significantly added to cardinal rule of criminal jurisprudence, that an accused shall be presumed to be innocent until proved guilty; in other words, presumption of innocence is doubled--Normally Courts are very slow in interfering with such an acquittal unless it is shown to be perverse, passed in gross violation of law, suffering from errors of grave misreading or non-reading of evidence; such judgments should not be lightly interfered and heavy burden lies on prosecution to rebut presumption of innocence which accused has earned and attained on account of his acquittal. …