' Mirza Muhammad Anwar, the appellant has brought the instant appeal challenging the acquittal of respondent No,2 Khalil-ur-Rehman vide the judgment dated 25-4-2003 recorded by Mr. Muhammad Anwar Butt, the learned Senior Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Muzaffargarh whereby he has acquitted him of the charge of offence under sections 406/419/468/471, P.P.C. In Case F.I.R. No,179 dated 1-7-2001 registered with Police Station, City Alipur, District Muzaffargarh while exercising his powers under section 249-A, Cr.P.C.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant appeal are that the respondent No,2 was challaned to the Court in the said case. The same was got registered by the appellant. He in the same has alleged that on 23-10-2000 his cheque book issued by the U.B.L., Alipur and other documents had lost. The same were kept by respondent No,2 in his possession and so he has committed criminal breach of trust.
3. The learned trial Court observed that there is no evidence of forgery of any document or criminal breach of trust against the respondent No,2-accused and so there is no probability of his being convicted of any offence ultimately. It with the same while exercising it's powers under section 249- A, Cr.P.C. Had acquitted him of the charge.
4. The appellant feeling aggrieved of the same has brought the instant appeal challenging his acquittal.
5. His learned counsel has contended only before this Court that the prosecutor was not heard before the passage of the impugned judgment and so the same is not sustainable in law on that score alone.
6. I have considered his submissions and gone through the copy of the impugned judgment.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant has shown me the copy of the interim order of the learned trial Court passed in the instant case on the same date i.e, 25-4-2003. The same goes to show that respondent No,2-accused on bail was present there that day as well as the counsel for the parties.
The other party besides respondent No, 2 was the State. So it is not believable that the learned trial Court did not hear the prosecutor when he was present on the day of passage of the impugned judgment. The contention, thus, raised on his behalf is without substance.
8. Even otherwise, the specimen signatures of the respondent No,2/accused were sent to the Handwriting Expert for comparison and his opinion/report in the matter. He had reported that the specimen signatures were not identical to that of questioned signatures on the disputed cheque.
Thereafter, there did not exist any possibility of the conviction of respondent No,2 for the alleged offence against him ultimately. Thus the further proceedings in the case could be a futile exercise.
The learned trial Court therefore, has rightly exercised it's power under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. In acquitting him.
9. There, thus seems nothing wrong with the impugned judgment. The appeal having no merit is hereby dismissed summarily as envisaged by section 421, Cr.P.C.