' Through the instant criminal appeal the appellants have called in question the judgment dated 9- 5-1997 passed by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Mian Channu whereby he acquitted the respondents Nos.1 to 5 in case F.I.R. No,113 dated 6-4-1994 under sections 457/ 380/436/427, P.P.C.
Registered at Police Station, City Mian Channu District Khanewal respondent No,6 has died during the pendency of this appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this petition are that complainant got recorded the statement on 6-4-1994 that while on patrol duty along with other constables at 11-00 p.m. Received a wireless message that a fire had erupted near Arena Hotel Mian Channu. They reached at the spot and saw the building of National Bank of Pakistan near Jamal Industry was on fire. The owner of Jamal Industry and other employees were at the spot. Fire Brigade and WAPDA officials reached the place of occurrence. The Manager of the Bank Mr. Shah Nawaz Siddiqui reached at the spot at about 12 O'Clock at night and at that time smoke had vanished. The Manager went inside the building and found that steel almirah was open. The other papers and furniture were burnt and amount of Rs,4,00,000 was missing from the steel almirah.
3. Case was investigated by Abdur Rashid S.-I/S.H.O. Police Station, Mian Channu. He recorded the statement of Liaqat Ali respondent who had confessed his guilt and stated that he had committed the offence in connivance with Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Ayub and Javaid Iqbal. This statement was recorded in presence of Muhammad Shah Nawaz Siddiqui Manager of the Bank, Noor Baig Guard of the Bank and Muhammad Aslam Store-keeper.
4. After completion of the investigation challan was submitted to the Court of competent jurisdiction. Charge was framed under sections 457/380/436/ 427, P.P.C. To which the respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution produced as many as 3 witnesses. Muhammad Sharif appeared as P.W.1 and stated in the examination-inchief that he knows nothing about the occurrence. He was declared hostile and was allowed to be cross-examined. He categorically stated that he did not know the accused persons even he had expressed his lack of knowledge as to whether the National Bank of Pakistan, Musa Virk Branch was set on fire or not. On the suggestion put to the said prosecution witness by the Inspector, Legal, he had categorically denied that Muhammad Shah Nawaz Siddiqui and Liaqat Ali made extra-judicial confession regarding the commission of offence. Abdul Latif P.W.2 appeared and stated that at about 10/11 O'Clock at night when his Watchman intimated that the Bank adjacent to the factory had caught fire. He immediately informed the Manager and rushed to the place of occurrence. He deposed that when he reached at the spot police was already present there to control the fire. Further submitted that A.C. Mian Channu and Bilal Jaskani, the Zonal Head of the National Bank of Pakistan was also present. Sikander P.W.3 was another witness of extra-judicial confession. Like P.W.1, he had stated that he did not know about the occurrence. He was declared hostile and was allowed to be cross-examined by the prosecution. He denied all the suggestions as incorrect. Muhammad Shah Nawaz Siddiqui and Muhammad Afzal the witnesses were given up by the prosecution.
6. After recording of the evidence of all the P.Ws. The accused moved an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Contending that it was a case of no evidence. Herefore, there was no possibility of accused being convicted. Accordingly as there was no evidence on record against the accused persons the petition was accepted and all the accused were acquitted vide impugned judgment dated 9-5-1997.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that after the promulgation of Special Courts Ordinance, 1984 (Offences in respect of Banks), the learned Civil Judge Ist Class/ Magistrate Section 30, Mian Channu District, Khanewal had no jurisdiction to try the case or to receive application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Hence the trial Court had acted beyond his jurisdiction. Therefore, the order of acquittal is not maintainable in the eye of law.
8. Conversely learned counsel for the respondents has strongly opposed the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that challan was submitted in the Court of learned Magistrate. Charge was framed. Statement of prosecution witnesses were recorded and they were accordingly cross-examined by the prosecution. In support of his arguments learned counsel has relied upon 2002 CLC 1017 (sic).
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. By going through the complete file of this case and the evidence produced by the prosecution in order to prove the case against the respondents one comes to irresistible conclusion that there was nothing direct or indirect evidence available on record against the respondents. P,W.1, Muhammad Sharif and Sikandar P.W.3 had totally shown their ignorance of knowledge of any such incident. They had declared hostile and many suggestions were put to them wherein they have categorically denied the involvements of the respondents in this case and even their knowledge of the same. As far as extra-judicial confession was concerned the accused had resiled before the Court of law even otherwise it was very weak type of evidence and had never been considered sufficient for the conviction of any person. P.W.2, Abdul Latif was also of no help to the prosecution as he was only a formal witness and conceded that no recovery whatsoever was effected in his presence from the accused persons. In view of such type of evidence there was absolutely no chance for conviction of the accused persons. Learned trial Court had rightly acquitted the accused persons of the charges levelled against them. As far as contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that after promulgation of Special Courts Ordinance, 1984 (Offences in respect of Banks) the case was exclusively triable by a Special Judge was also a baseless effort to raise this question after such a long time. The allegation was that said person had stolen cash worth Rs,5 lac and had set on fire Bank premises which offence by any stretch of imagination was not covered by the definition of Offences in Banks that was pure and simple a case triable by ordinary Court. Learned counsel for the respondents had rightly relied on 2002 CLC 1017 (sic).
10. In view of what has been discussed above I am of the view that no case for interference is made out in acquittal order. No arbitrariness or perversity of reasoning has been found by this Court in the impugned order. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed and the order passed by the learned Magistrate wherein all the respondents were acquitted is upheld.