KARACHI: The Sindh High Court has pointed out irregularities in a conviction order of a sessions judge and observed that he was either incompetent or susceptible to influence.
A single bench of the SHC headed by Justice Nazar Akbar ruled that while deciding a direct complaint filed regarding defamation, additional district and sessions judge Naveed Ahmed Soomro had not only misused his position or unlawfully exercised his authority by reopening the case after the statement of the accused, but also failed to appreciate the statement of the accused recorded under oath in correct perspective.
While setting aside the conviction/fine imposed by the sessions judge, the SHC bench said that this judgement may be placed in the personal file of the sessions judge and it should also be brought to the notice of the chief justice.
A pro forma, circulated by the chief justice in 2015 to monitor the performance of lower appellate courts, is also separately filled and sent to the registrar of SHC, it added.
After conducting the trial on a direct complaint, the sessions judge found the accused guilty and sentence him to fine in 2017 by taking lenient view and asked the convict to pay Rs100,000 to the complainant in one month.
Both the parties were running the business of ship handling. However, the convict filed a criminal appeal before the SHC against the sessions court order.
The SHC bench further observed that the character of the complainant was exposed by the appellant through some documents, but the trial court judge, endeavoured to ensure that the complainant should go victorious from his court, not even discussed these admitted documents in accordance with the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1982.
It further said that the sessions judge clearly favoured the complainant when he convicted the appellant and sentenced him to pay fine as punishment and ordered to pay the fine to complainant within 30 days, adding that sessions judge has no authority to handover the fine to complainant.
The facts and discussion led the bench to believe that the sessions judge was either incompetent or susceptible of being influenced or devoid of any judicial approach in dispensing with the criminal cases, it concluded.
