IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
MR. JUSTICE JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL  
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 91-K OF 2020 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 12.05.2020 
passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Criminal 
Appeal No. 183/2019) 
 
Muhammad Samiullah 
 
 
… Petitioner 
Versus 
The State 
 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Mr. Anis Muhammad Shahzad, AOR 
 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Hussain Bux Baloch, Addl. P.G. Sindh 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
09.02.2022 
 
JUDGMENT 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Petitioner was 
proceeded against in terms of the case registered vide FIR No. 
25/2015 dated 14.07.2015 under Section 409 PPC read with 
Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act-II, 1947 at Police Station 
ACE East Zone, Karachi on the allegation that he being incharge of 
Laboratory of Regional Education Center, Shah Faisal Colony, 
Karachi had misappropriated some of the machinery/equipment. 
The learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 19.03.2019 
convicted the petitioner while exercising powers under Section 
245(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 
4 years for the offence under Section 409 PPC. He was also directed 
to pay fine of Rs.25000/- or in default whereof to further suffer SI 
for 3 months. The petitioner was also convicted under Section 5(2) of 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and was sentenced to 4 years RI 
with a fine of Rs.25000/- or in default whereof to further undergo SI 
for 3 months. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently with 
benefit of Section 382(b) Cr.P.C. In appeal, the learned High Court of 
Sindh, maintained the conviction and sentences recorded by the 
learned Trial Court.  
Criminal Petition No. 91-K/2020 
-: 2 :- 
3. 
 
After completion of the investigation, report under 
Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Trial Court. The 
prosecution in order to prove its case produced 6 witnesses. In his 
statement recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C the appellant pleaded 
his innocence and refuted all the allegations leveled against him. 
However, he neither examined himself on oath under Section 340(2) 
Cr.P.C nor did he lead any evidence in his defence.  
4. 
 
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner 
contended that it was an unseen occurrence as nobody has seen the 
petitioner while stealing the equipment of the laboratory. Contends 
that the prosecution’s case revolves around the alleged admission of 
the petitioner by filing an application but the fact is that the 
petitioner had never filed any such application. Contends that the 
case against the petitioner is highly doubtful and the courts below 
have failed to take into consideration that the prosecution has 
miserably failed to prove its case against the petitioner beyond any 
shadow of doubt and the benefit of the same must be given to the 
petitioner. Lastly contends that the judgments passed by the courts 
below are result of misreading and non-reading of prosecution 
evidence whereby a huge miscarriage of justice has been done.  
5. 
 
 On the other hand, learned Law Officer has defended 
the impugned judgment. He contended that the appellant has been 
specifically nominated in the crime report with an allegation of 
misappropriation of office equipment and during departmental 
inquiry proceedings, he had admitted his guilt and had filed an 
application in this regard and sought time to return the equipment, 
therefore, he does not deserve any leniency by this Court. 
6. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some 
length and have perused the evidence available on the record with 
their able assistance.  
 
 
The perusal of record clearly reflects that there is no 
direct evidence available on the record, which could connect the 
petitioner with the commission of the crime. The prosecution’s case 
mainly hinges upon the testimonies of four PWs, who belong to the 
Criminal Petition No. 91-K/2020 
-: 3 :- 
petitioner’s department. The crux of the testimonies of the four PWs 
who belonged to the petitioner’s department is that during the 
inquiry proceedings the petitioner had confessed his guilt and had 
submitted an application seeking time to return the articles. 
However, we have noted that a specific question in this regard was 
put to the petitioner while recording his statement under Section 342 
Cr.P.C. but he categorically denied the filing of any such application 
or his signatures on the said application. Perusal of the record 
reveals that neither the disputed signatures of the petitioner were 
sent to the handwriting expert nor the forensic test of the same was 
got done to get them verified in a scientific manner and the Trial 
Court of its own compared the admitted signatures of the petitioner 
with the disputed signatures on the alleged application filed by him. 
There is no cavil that Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 
1984 empowers the Courts to compare the disputed signatures in 
order to ascertain whether the same is that of the person by whom it 
purports to have been written or made but in the matters where no 
direct evidence is available and the prosecution case exclusively 
rests on indirect evidence especially like the present case where the 
prosecution’s case is solely based upon the alleged admission of the 
petitioner then as an abundant caution the Courts while convicting 
an accused must adopt a safest way, which glorifies the true spirit 
behind the safe administration of criminal justice, which admittedly 
has not been done by the courts below. Even otherwise, it is settled 
law that in absence of sufficient evidence available on the record in 
the shape of oral or documentary, the evidence of handwriting 
expert is always considered to be most unsatisfactory, so weak and 
decrepit as scarcely to deserve a place in the system of 
jurisprudence and the courts are not to base their findings merely on 
expert opinion. Reliance is placed on Rubina Jamshed Vs. UBL 
(2005 CLD 50), Abdul Hamid Vs. Deputy Commissioner (1985 SCMR 
359), Shabbir Hussain Vs. The State (1968 SCMR 1126) and Anwar 
Ahmad Vs. Nafis Bano (2005 SCMR 152). It is also an admitted 
position that at the time of registration of the crime report neither the 
inventory of the alleged stolen articles nor their description was 
given. If the foundation of the prosecution case is false and would 
not conform to the doctrine of fairness then the very case of the 
Criminal Petition No. 91-K/2020 
-: 4 :- 
prosecution falls to the ground. In these circumstances, a dent in the 
prosecution’s case has been created, benefit of which must be given 
to the petitioner. It is a settled law that single circumstance creating 
reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of accused 
makes him entitled to its benefits, not as a matter of grace and 
concession but as a matter of right. The conviction must be based on 
unimpeachable, trustworthy and reliable evidence. Any doubt 
arising in prosecution’s case is to be resolved in favour of the 
accused as burden of proof is always on prosecution to prove its 
case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. However, as discussed 
above, in the present case the prosecution has failed to prove its 
case beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. Before parting with 
the judgment, we may observe that the learned Special Judge, Anti 
Corruption/Trial Court while un-necessarily pressing into Section 
245(2) Cr.P.C. has convicted the petitioner for the offence under 
Section 409 PPC. Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure 
deals with the trial of cases by Magistrate and Section 244 & 245 lie 
in this Chapter, which prescribe the procedure for trial of a warrant 
case instituted on a complaint. However, as the prosecution has 
failed to prove its case, we do not deem it appropriate to go further 
into this aspect of the matter.  
7. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we convert this 
petition into appeal, allow it and set aside the impugned judgment. 
The petitioner is acquitted of the charge. He shall be released from 
jail forthwith unless detained in any other case.  
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
9th of February, 2022 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram