' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.--- Granted.
' As a short point is involved in this revision application, with the consent of learned counsel for the applicant and A.A.-G. It has been heard and decided at Katcha Peshi stage.
2. This revision application calls in question the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 12-7- 2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sehwan in Criminal Appeal No,12 of 2005.
3. Facts in brief forming the background of F.I.R. No,88 of 2001 registered at Police Station Bhan as appearing in the appellate Court's judgment are as follows:-- ' On 12-9-2001 complainant Muhammad Yakoob lodged F.I.R. Stating that he is serving as Valve man at water supply scheme Bhan, where Muhammad Soomar is Chowkidar. According to him, on 11-9-2001 when he and Chowkidar Muhammad Soomar went to check water supply connection of Dal Shakh at about 11-00 a.m. They saw that water supply pipe line was disconnected, while accused Bandah Ali Leghari and Umer Leghari were available there, where they asked about breaking of water pipe line and diverting the water to their land, the accused persons abused them. Complainant restrained them meanwhile accused Umer Leghari caused sharp-side spade blow on head of Soomar and accused Bandah Ali inflicted kicks and fists blows to complainant. P.
Ws. Hazoro and Ghulam Qadir who were coming by the side of Dal Shakh came there and rescued the complainant and injured. Thereafter complainant and injured Soomar returned to Town Committee Bhan, and injured Soomar was taken to Police Station Bhan and after obtaining letter for his treatment, was admitted in Bhan Hospital. On the next day, the complainant lodged F.I.R.
Against the accused persons.
4. On conclusion of the trial, the trial Court convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under section 337-A(ii), P.P.C. For imprisonment of two years. He was also convicted under section 430, P.P.C. And sentenced to suffer R.I. For one year plus fine of Rs,500 and in default thereof to suffer S.I. For one month. The applicant was also convicted to suffer R.I. For one year and fine of Rs,500 for the offence punishable under section 353, P.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently and the applicant was extended benefit as admissible under section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
' However, on appeal, the Appellate Court set aside the sentence awarded under sections 337-A(ii) and 430, P.P.C. But maintained the conviction awarded to the appellant under section 353, P.P.C.
Vide judgment, dated 12-7-2007.
5. Arguments have been heard.
Learned A.A.-G. Has not been able to controvert the legal position that prosecution case has been rendered doubtful as neither the offence of mischief by doing some act of works of irrigation or by A wrongfully diverting the water has been proved nor the offence of causing any kind of injury to the complainant has been established. As such the punishment under section 353, P.P.C. Was not warranted by law.
6. The arguments advanced at the bar have been considered and the judgments passed by the two Courts below have been scrutinized.
7. The perusal of the judgment of Appellate Court reveals that the Appellate Court found no evidence of tampering with or causing mischief to the works of irrigation and therefore, set aside the conviction recorded by the trial Court for the said offence.
' Similarly, the Appellate Court did not find any evidence to the effect that the applicant/accused caused any injury to the complainant or anyone else with the result that the applicant/appellant was acquitted of the offence punishable under section 337-A(ii), P.P.C.
' If the charges against the applicant for causing damage to the water works, and causing injuries to the complainant or P.W. Were not proved, how can it be said with certainty that the applicant used criminal force against the complainant for deterring him from discharge of his duty.
Resultantly, punishing the accused/applicant for assaulting or using criminal force to deter the complainant from discharge of his duty will be out of question. The acquittal of the applicant in the two offences have rendered the case of the prosecution doubtful. The judgment of the Appellate Court is improper and marred by infirmities which could not be sustained. Accordingly, the revision application is allowed. The Appellate Court's judgment is set aside to the extent of awarding conviction to the applicant under section 353, P.P.C.
' Consequently, the applicant is acquitted of all the charges. He shall be set free if not required in any other case.