1. ' The applicant Azad Gul, lodged a report at Police Station, Badaber, against respondent No, 1, Abdul Hanan, on the 4th of October, 1976 at 9-00 a.m. The main allegations contained in the report were these. A vacant site situate in the Abadi of Village Sheikhan was donated to Azad Gul by late Sheikh Mehboob Ali Khan on which the former constructed a house in the year 1930. About 10/12 days prior to the 4th of October. 1976, Abdul Hanan asked Azad Gul to vacate the house. This was, however, not done. On the 30th of September, 1976, Abdul Hanan dismantled the house by force.
2. ' A case under section 448, Pakistan Penal Code, was registered against Abdul Hanan. After necessary investigation he was challaned and sent up for trial. The Magistrate trying the case, after full trial, acquitted the accused under section 245, Criminal Procedure Code, by his order dated 31st of July, 1978. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has preferred the present revision to this Court.
3. ' I am asked to interfere in revision with the acquittal of the accused of the offence alleged. I first consider the provisions of section 435, Criminal Procedure Code, regarding interference with a finding of acquittal with reference to the facts of this case. Section 435 empowers the Courts specified therein to call for the records of inferior criminal Courts specified therein and examine them for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to whether a sentence, finding or order of such inferior Court is legal, correct or proper or whether the proceedings of such inferior Court are regular. A High Court has thus powers to call for the records of inferior criminal Courts situate within the local limits of its jurisdiction and to make such orders as are necessary for the ends of justice.
4. The object of conferring powers of revision under this section is to give superior criminal Courts a supervisory jurisdiction in order to correct the miscarriage o justice, arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precautions or apparent harshness of treatment.
5. As a matter of practice, the High Courts have recognized a rule that ordinarily a finding of fact or an order of acquittal should not be interfered with in revision, though there is no doubt about their jurisdiction to interfere in cases o exceptional circumstances or where there is error of law or the trial has bee illegal or so radically and incurably irregular as to have occasioned a failure of justice.
6. In the present case, there can, I think, be no doubt, and the learned counsel for the applicant also candidly conceded before me, that there had been no error of law nor had the trial been illegal or irregular resulting in the failure of justice. Since the finding of acquittal in this case is not based on an erroneous view of the rule nor had the trial been illegal or irregular, this Court, as a matter of practice, would not go into' evidence to interfere with the order of acquittal unless there are exceptional circumstances for such an interference.
7. ' The learned counsel for the applicant was not in a position to contend that there existed exceptional circumstance in this case to invoke the re-visional jurisdiction of this Court. He, however, described the impugned order as foolish and perverse saying that the appraisal of evidence on the part of the trial Court was highly objectionable. Although it is not in the least necessary to find out if the evidence produced by the prosecution at the trial justified the order of acquittal. I would examine the position because the order was subjected to severe criticism by the learned counsel for the applicant. His contention, in essence, was that the evidence produced by the prosecution was sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. This contention, in my view, cannot bear examination. In attempting to support the contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the evidence of Azad Gul complainant as P. W. 1 and Said Rehman P. W.
8. 2.
9. ' On a careful analysis of the entire evidence produced by the prosecution at the trial, I have come to the conclusion that the evidence does not only suffer from very many grave infirmities but is also replete with improbabilities. In this context, it may be pointed out that the case set up in the First Information Report was that the vacant site in question had been donated to the petitioner by late Sheikh Mehboob Ali Khan and that the former built a house thereon in the year 1930. No evidence, either documentary or oral, apart from the statement of the petitioner which being interested cannot be accepted as a gospel truth, has been produced at the trial to show that the site had actually been donated to, and house had been built upon it by, the petitioner. Further, in the First Information Report, the house was stated to have been constructed in 1930. This position was, however, abandoned by the petitioner in his statement at the trial wherein he came forward with the version that the house had been constructed by him about 11 months back. These two versions, one contained in the First Information Report about the construction of the house having taken place in the year 1930, and the other made at the trial in regard to the construction having taken place 11 months back, cannot be reconciled. The statement of Said Rehman P. W. Who is 40 years old, that the petitioner was living in the house since before the former's birth, runs counter to the statement of the petitioner according to which he had constructed the house only about 11 months before making statement in Court. It may further be pointed out that according to the statement of fact made in the First Information Report, the occurrence took place on 30th of September, 1976, whereas the report was lodged with the Police on the 4th of October, 1976. The complainant- petitioner did not, however, stick to this position in his statement at the trial where he said that he had lodged the report on the very same day on which the occurrence took place. Apart from this, it is really strange that although the occurrence is said to have taken place in broad daylight and the petitioner and his witness Said Rehman claim to have seen it, none of them was able to give the number and the names of the persons who, according to them, had joined the accused- respondent in dismantling the house in question. It appears to me that either the occurrence itself did not take place or if at all anything happened, it did not happen in the presence of the petitioner and the aforesaid witness. It would follow, therefore, that the evidence produced by the prosecution at the trial was worthless and the trial Court was thus perfectly justified in recording the order of acquittal.
10. ' For the reasons given above, the application for Revision fails and is accordingly dismissed.