' SHAMSUDDIN HISBANI, J.---Through this criminal acquittal appeal the judgment dated 26-1-2005, passed by learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate-I, Tando Muhammad Khan, whereby he recorded acquittal of the respondent under section 13-D Arms Ordinance, has been called into question.
2. The case of the prosecution, briefly stated, is that complainant SIP Muhammad Rafique Jatt lodged report at Police Station, Tando Muhammad Khan on 29-10-2001 that Double Barrel Gun and nine cartridges were secured from the possession of the respondent/accused Allah Bukhsh.
3. The case was investigated and the accused was challaned in Court. Formal charge was framed to which accused/ respondent pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined two witnesses namely complainant/Investigating Officer, Muhammad Rafique Jatt and PC Ghulam Shabbir, the Mashir of recovery. The statement of the accused was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Wherein he pleaded false implication. He did not examine himself on oath. No evidence in defence was led by him. On examining the evidence on record learned trial Court acquitted him of the charge.
' I have heard Mr. Saeeduddin Siddiqui, learned counsel for, the Appellant.
4. At the outset, it may be mentioned that State did not challenge the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court and the instant appeal has been preferred by Mir Mumtaz Ali Talpur, who is neither the complainant nor directly concerned with the incident. He has not been examined as a witness at the trial. The Memo. Of appeal is wholly silent as to in what manner the appellant is connected in this matter. No doubt, under the newly amended provision of subsection (2-A) of section 417, Cr.P.C.
An aggrieved person can prefer an appeal against acquittal, but for the purpose of pressing into service this provision of law the appellant has to prove that for any practical purpose he is affected of the order of the acquittal. It is to be noted that merely because a person is remotely concerned about the result of the acquittal he cannot be termed as an aggrieved person in legal sense unless he establishes before the Court his interests are directly jeopardized or injured in consequence of such appeal. To put in more precise term reference may be made to the Dictionary Meaning of word "Aggrieved" given by Chambers 21st Century Dictionary (Revised Addition), which reads as under:-- "Aggrieved, angry, hurt or upset because one feels that one has been badly or unfairly treated.
2. Law having suffered because of someone else's illegal behaviour."
5. Obviously the appellant has not been able to show that he has suffered the cause of acquittal of the respondent. The appellant seems to have been motivated by any reason best known to him, but there is no valid and legal ground to treat him as an aggrieved person within the ambit of subsection (2-A) of section 417, Cr.P.C.
' Learned counsel for the appellant ventured to seek support from the judgment of this Court reported as Ms. Rachel Joseph v. Aftabuddin Qureshi 2000 PCr.LJ 1715, but with due regards it may be observed that the substantial ground dealt with in the cited authority is absolute different from the facts of the case in hand. It would be seen that in the cited case the appellant therein was the complainant who had lodged F.I.R. And had entered into a contract with respondent/accused. The complainant in the instant case, as already stated, is a police officer while the appellant does not figure in the case of prosecution as complainant or having any direct interest.
6. The point involved in this case has already been thrashed by this Court in Abdul Sattar v. State 2000 PCr.LJ 766 observing as under:-- "3-A. An individual cannot, therefore, claim himself to be an aggrieved person within the meaning of section 417 (2-A), Cr.P.C. On the ground that the said weapon was used, or could have been used, against him, as this possibility would also exist, had there been a licensed weapon, but, in the case, there would be no offence under section 13(d), Arms Ordinance. In case of acquittal from a charge of an offence under section 13(d), Arms Ordinance, the State can only be the aggrieved party. No individual can be an aggrieved person in that case for the purpose of section 417 (2-A), Criminal Procedure Code. The appeal, being filed by a person not authorized by law to do so, is not maintainable. It is dismissed accordingly."
7. In the result of forgoing discussion, I do not find force in the contention of learned counsel for appellant. The appellant is not an aggrieved person within the meaning of section 417(2-A), Cr.P.C.
And is not entitled to prefer the acquittal appeal. Consequently, the appeal being not maintainable is dismissed in limine.
' Above are the reasons for my short order passed on 8-11-2005.