By filing this criminal revision petition under Section 439-A, Cr.P.C., Jehanzeb Khan son of Muhammad Hayat Khan, petitioner, challenges the judgment dated 10.7.2007 passed by the learned Magistrate Section 30, and that of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mianwali dated 18.8.2007.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was tried by the learned Magistrate Section 30 Mianwali in case FIR No, 379/06 dated 31.8.2006 registered with Police Station City Mianwali for an offence under Section 489-F, P.P.C. The case had been registered at the instance of Fazal-ur- Rehman Khan son of Abdul Karim Khan, complainant.
3. The allegation in the FIR was that on 9.3.2006 when the complainant was present at the shop of Tahir Khan Autos situated at Truck Adda Mianwali City, alongwith Abdul Wasiq Khan sou of Atta Muhammad and Ghaus Muhammad son of Saleh Muhammad, Jehanzeb Khan the present petitioner came and demanded Rs, 10,30,000/- as loan; that in lieu thereof a postdated cheque dated 28.8.2006 drawn on Habib Bank Limited PAF Branch was delivered to him; on 29.8.2006 when he went to the said bank for encashment, the same had been dishonoured on account of lack of funds. Resultantly the aforesaid case had been registered.
4. On receipt of the challan, the Seearned trial Judge, after completing all legal formalities had framed formal charge against the petitioner, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Thereafter, the prosecution in order to prove its case had produced as many as seven witnesses.
After close of prosecution evidence the petitioner got recorded his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. wherein he tendered in defence copies of a large number of documents. However, he declined to appear as his own witness under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court vide its impugned judgment dated 10.7.2007 came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and proceeded to convict and sentence the petitioner under 'Section 489-F, P.P.C. to suffer 1(1/2 years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs, 5000/- and in case of default in the payment of fine it was ordered that he (petitioner) would undergo one months S.I.
5. Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 10.7.2007, the petitioner preferred an appeal Wore the Court of learned Sessions Judge Mianwali. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge to whom the appeal had been entrusted vide his judgment dated 18.8.2007 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner as also Revision Petition No, 6 of 2007, which had been filed by the complainant of the case, for enhancement of sentence awarded to the petitioner. Both the judgments passed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mianwali dated 10.7.2007 and 18.8.2007 respectively have been impugned by means of this criminal revision.
6. With the able assistance of Mr. Aziz Ahmad Malik, the learned counsel for the petitioner I have gone through both the judgments.
7. There is no cavil with the proposition that while sized of a revision petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., apart from questions of law this Court can also deal with questions of fact and can interfere if the findings of the Courts below on questions of fact are unreasonably perverse and against the weight of evidence occasioning serious injustice r failure of substantial justice. The learned trial Court has given elaborate reasons for relying on the prosecution evidence. The defence taken by the petitioner has fully been taken into account by the trial Court while coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had brought home the charge against the petitioner. There are only some minor discrepancies in the evidence, which were not of any significance and did not cause any dent in the main prosecution case. The emphasis of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the charge sheet the date, on which loan had allegedly been obtained, was mentioned as 18.6.2006 whereas in the FIR the said date had been mentioned as 9.3.2006, therefore, the entire prosecution case merits to be disbelieved, is absolutely without any substance. It appears that the wrong date had been given in the charge sheet either on account of inadvertence or it was a typographical error, inasmuch as the material prosecution witnesses in their depositions had stated that it was 9th March 2006 when the loan amount had been given. During examination of the petitioner under Section 342 Cr.P.C. Question No, 6 was specifically put to him in the following terms: It is in evidence that on 9.3.2006 in the presence of PWs Abdul Wasiq Khan and Ghous Muhammad at Taher Auto Store Truck Adda Mianwali owned by PW Abdul Wasiq Khan, (you) received a sum of Rs, 10,30,000/- as loan from complainant Fazal-urRehman Khan PW. What do you say about it?"
The answer to the said question given by the petitioner was as follows:- "It is incorrect. I never received Rs, 10,30,000/- as loan. They are fraudulent group (PWs)."
8. It is thus clear that no prejudice had been caused to the -petitioner by the mistake in charge sheet on account of the date on which the loan had been given. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any jurisdictional infirmity, illegality, or irregularity in procedure or perversity of reasoning on the part of the learned trial Court as also on the part of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge who decided the appeal so as to warrant any interference in the matter by this Court through exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Both the judgments are well reasoned, elaborate and based on sound reasoning and disclose application of judicial mind.
9. This revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine.