IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT:  
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL 
MR. JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
 
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 1659 
OF 2019 & CRIMINAL PETITION NOS. 509 & 
510 OF 2020  
(Against the order dated 07.08.2019 passed by High 
Court of Sindh, At Karachi in Criminal Accountability 
Appeal No.56/2018 and No.57/2018) 
 
Utility 
Store 
Corporation 
of 
Pakistan 
through its Managing Director Islamabad  
 
(in Crl.MA .No.1659/19) 
 
Chairman NAB through PG NAB Islamabad  
 
(in Crl.P.No.509-510/20) 
 
… 
Petitioner(s) 
Versus 
 
The State and another  
… 
(in Crl.MA .No.1659/19) 
Masood Alam Niazi (respondent No.03) 
 
(in Crl.P.No.509/2020) 
Zia Ulla Khan Warsi (respondent No.04) 
 
(in Crl.P.No.510/2020) 
 
 
Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner/Appellant  
: 
Mr. Aftab Alam Yasir, ASC 
(In Crl.MA No.1659/2019) 
 
 
 
For the State 
: 
Mr. Nasir Mehmood Mughal, Special 
Prosecutor NAB (In Crl.P.No.509-510/20) 
 
 
 
For the Respondent(s) 
 
Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha, ASC 
on behalf of the respondent No.03 
(In Crl.MA.No.1659/19) 
 
Mr. Muhammad Akram Gondal ASC on 
behalf of the respondent No.04  
(In Crl.MA.No.1659/19) 
 
Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha ASC on 
behalf of the respondent No.01  
(In Crl.P.No.509/20) 
 
Mr. Muhammad Akram Gondal, ASC 
on behalf of the respondent No.01  
(In Crl.P.No. 510/20) 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 
24.11.2020 
 
 
 
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 1659 OF 2019 & 
CRIMINAL PETITION NOS. 509 & 510 OF 2020 
2 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.-  
Criminal M.A. No. 1659 of 2019 
 
 
This is an application filed by Utility Stores Corporation of 
Pakistan seeking permission to file Criminal Petition against the impugned 
judgment of the High Court dated 07.08.2019. At the very outset, we have 
asked learned counsel for the applicant as to how this application is 
maintainable in view of the specific bar contained in Section 32(a) of the 
National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, to which he could not give any 
plausible reason. Section 32(a) clearly mandates as under: 
“any person convicted or the Prosecutor General Accountability, if 
so directed by the Chairman NAB, aggrieved by the final judgment 
and order of the Court under this Ordinance may, within ten days 
of the final judgment and order of the Court prefer an appeal to the 
High Court of the Province where the Court is situated”.  
 
Provided that no appeal shall lie against any interlocutory order of 
the Court.” 
 
2. 
 
The said Section also came under consideration by this 
Court in a case reported as Syed Masroor Shah etc Vs. The State (PLD 
2005 SC 173) and in para 3, it has been held as follows:- 
 
“The words “any person convicted or the Prosecutor General 
Accountability if so directed by NAB” as employed in clause (a) of 
section 32 of the NAB Ordinance, 1999 are to be interpreted in the 
ordinary dictionary meaning that “any person” means “a person 
convicted for any offence under the NAB Ordinance, 1999 or the 
Prosecutor General NAB”. By no stretch of imagination in view of 
the language as used in section 32 of the NAB Ordinance, 1999, 
right of appeal can be conferred to anyone else except as 
mentioned in the section itself.” 
 
2. 
 
For what has been discussed above, this application is 
dismissed being not maintainable.  
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 1659 OF 2019 & 
CRIMINAL PETITION NOS. 509 & 510 OF 2020 
3 
 
Criminal Petition Nos. 509 & 510 of 2020 
3. 
 
The respondents Masood Alam Niazi and Ziaullah Khan 
Warsi, employees of Utility Stores Corporation, were tried by the 
Accountability Court No. III, Karachi on the charges of corruption and 
corrupt practices qua the embezzlement to the tune of Rs.19,236,702/- by 
such causing loss to the exchequer of the Government. The learned Trial 
Court vide its judgment dated 11.10.2018 found the respondents guilty of 
Section 9 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, as a consequence 
they were convicted under Section 10 of the NAB Ordinance, 1999. The 
respondent Masood Alam Niazi was sentenced to suffer RI for 5 years 
whereas respondent Ziaullah Khan Warsi was sentenced to suffer RI for 7 
years and to pay a fine of Rs.62,92,151/- or in default whereof to further 
suffer RI for one year. Both the respondents were also disqualified for 
holding any public office for a period of 10 years. They were also given the 
benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. The Appellate Court while adjudicating 
the matter before it, found that the evidence available on record is not 
sufficient to maintain conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court and 
while extending benefit of doubt, acquitted the respondents, hence these 
petitions seeking leave to appeal.   
4. 
 
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on a complaint 
received against the respondents, an investigation was conducted by 
NAB. It was found that respondent Masood Alam Niazi has misused his 
authority by illegally making payment of Rs. 19,236,702/- into the account 
of respondent Ziaullah Khan Warsi, Accounts Clerk, who was deputed as 
incharge for lifting of sugar from Pipri Godown of Trading Corporation of 
Pakistan on account of labour charges, which had already been paid by 
Trading Corporation to the handling agent. Charge was framed against the 
respondents vide order dated 25.11.2016 by the Accountability Court, 
which was denied by them, hence, claimed trial. The prosecution 
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 1659 OF 2019 & 
CRIMINAL PETITION NOS. 509 & 510 OF 2020 
4 
produced as many as 8 witnesses. The respondents on 26.02.2018 while 
recording their statements under Section 342 Cr.P.C denied the 
allegations leveled against them on the ground that none of the 
prosecution witnesses had made any statement against them, which could 
substantiate the allegations. However, respondent Ziaullah Khan Warsi 
added that the only statement, which is incriminating against him is the 
statement of the Investigating Officer.   
5. 
 
Learned Special Prosecutor NAB inter alia contended that 
the learned High Court has passed the impugned judgment in a stereo 
style fashion without adverting to the real facts and circumstances; that it 
is a glaring example of misreading and non-reading of the evidence; that 
the learned High Court has given artificial reasonings, which is squarely hit 
by material irregularity and illegality and as such the impugned judgment 
of acquittal is not sustainable in the interest of safe administration of 
criminal justice; that there are statements of 8 witnesses coupled with 
documentary evidence, which clearly reflect that the finding given by the 
learned Trial Court was fully justified, which has been discarded by the 
learned High Court on flimsy grounds. Lastly contends that the impugned 
judgment is passed while ignoring established principles of appreciation of 
evidence, hence, interference by this Court would be well within the 
dictates of justice.   
6. 
 
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 
supported the impugned judgment. It has been contended by the learned 
counsel that neither oral or documentary evidence incriminating in nature 
was brought on the record to substantiate the allegations against the 
respondents; that there is no direct evidence available on the record 
connecting the respondents with the commission of crime; that the 
disputed amount was paid to the transporters through cheques; that 
respondent Masood Alam Niazi is neither a signatory of any cheque nor 
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 1659 OF 2019 & 
CRIMINAL PETITION NOS. 509 & 510 OF 2020 
5 
has any connection with the issuance of cheques; that most of the 
cheques were signed by Kamal Mustafa and Muhammad Saeed but they 
were not involved in the case.  
7. 
 
We have heard learned Special Prosecutor, NAB, as also 
learned counsel for the respondents and have gone through the record.  
8. 
 
The learned High Court while acquitting the respondents has 
mainly observed that none of the prosecution witnesses have implicated 
the respondents with the allegation of misappropriation or embezzlement 
of amount; that the payments were made through cheques to the handling 
agents towards labour charges for loading and unloading and this position 
has been admitted in evidence by the prosecution witnesses; that the 
Investigating 
Officer 
had 
recorded 
statements 
of 
handling 
agents/transporters during investigation but none of them were examined 
during trial except Asad Ilyas, PW-4, who was doing job in a private 
company which was subsidiary of M/s International Equipment 
Corporation, Karachi to handle sugar from Port including transportation to 
Trading Corporation of Pakistan’s nominee from Pipri Godown through 
delivery order. This witness has admitted in cross-examination that they 
did not make any demand of labour charges from Trading Corporation of 
Pakistan. It was also observed that no money trail has been sorted out 
and no evidence of whatsoever nature has been brought on record to 
show that the respondents were the beneficiaries and that nothing was 
brought on record to show that Trading Corporation had also made 
payment to the handling agents. The fact that no payment was made by 
Trading Corporation to the handling agents was also admitted by the 
Special Prosecutor NAB in the High Court. The High Court also mentioned 
about the letter written by the Trading Corporation of Pakistan to Utility 
Stores Corporation regarding arrangement of labour for loading of sugar 
bags into trucks and its transportation by the Utility Stores Corporation. 
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 1659 OF 2019 & 
CRIMINAL PETITION NOS. 509 & 510 OF 2020 
6 
The question of payment of labour charges to handling agents does not 
constitute an offence by means of corruption and corrupt practices but 
mere a procedural irregularity. The judgments of this Court reported as 
The State Vs. Anwar Saif Ullah Khan (PLD 2016 SC 276), Mansoorul Haq 
Vs. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2008 SC 166) and Khan Asfandyar 
Wali Vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2001 SC 607) were also quoted to 
hold that the prosecution is never absolved from proving the charge 
beyond reasonable doubt and the burden shifts to the accused only when 
the prosecution succeeds in establishing the presumption of guilt. 
9. 
 
This Court in the case of Ghulam Sikandar Vs. Mamaraz 
Khan (PLD 1985 SC 11) while hearing appeal against acquittal has held 
as follows: 
“……………that the acquittal carries with it the two well-
accepted presumptions : One initial, that, till found guilty, 
the accused is innocent ; and two that again after the trial a 
court below confirmed the assumption of innocence. The 
acquittal will not carry the second presumption and will 
also thus lose the first one if on points having conclusive 
effect on the end result the Court below : (a) disregarded 
material evidence ; (b) misread such evidence ; (c) 
received such evidence illegally. 
…………………………………………………….. 
The Court would not interfere with acquittal merely 
because on re-appraisal of the evidence it comes to the 
conclusion different from that of the Court acquitting the 
accused provided both the conclusions are reasonably 
possible. If, however, the conclusion reached by that Court 
was such that no reasonable person would conceivably 
reach the same and was impossible then this Court would 
interfere in exceptional cases on overwhelming proof 
resulting in conclusive and irresistible conclusion ; and that 
too with a view only to avoid grave miscarriage of justice 
and for no other purpose. The important test visualised in 
these cases, in this behalf was that the finding sought to 
be interfered with, after scrutiny under the foregoing 
searching light, should be found wholly as artificial, 
shocking and ridiculous.” 
 
10. 
 
The Indian Supreme Court in a case reported as Sadhu 
Saran Singh Vs. State of U.P (AIR 2016 SC 1160) while discussing the 
issue of appeal against acquittal held as follows:- 
“18. Generally, an appeal against acquittal has always been 
altogether on a different pedestal from that of an appeal against 
conviction. In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption 
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 1659 OF 2019 & 
CRIMINAL PETITION NOS. 509 & 510 OF 2020 
7 
of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate 
Court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is 
perversity of fact and law. However, we believe that the 
paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice 
and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the 
accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that 
may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the 
conviction of an innocent. This Court, while enunciating the 
principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate 
Court in an appeal against acquittal, in the case of Sambasivan 
and Ors. v. State of Kerala (1998) 5 SCC 412, has held: 
 
The principles with regard to the scope of the 
powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against 
acquittal are well settled. The powers of the 
appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal are 
no less than in an appeal against conviction. But 
where on the basis of evidence on record two views 
are reasonably possible the appellate Court cannot 
substitute its view in the place of that of the trial 
Court. It is only when the approach of the trial Court 
in acquitting an accused is found to be clearly 
erroneous in its consideration of evidence on 
record and in deducing conclusions therefrom that 
the appellate Court can interfere with the order of 
acquittal.” 
 
11. 
 
After perusing the impugned judgment of the High Court and 
the record of this case, we are of the considered view that the reasoning 
given by the High Court while acquitting the respondents is neither 
arbitrary nor perverse nor fanciful and the same does not call for any 
interference by this Court. These petitions having no merit are accordingly 
dismissed and leave is refused.   
12. 
 
The above are the detailed reasons of our short order dated 
24.11.2020 vide which all these cases were dismissed.  
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
Islamabad 
24th of November, 2020 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram