1. ' ARSHAD NOOR KHAN, J.--- By this order we intend to dispose of Constitutional Petitions Nos.D-445 of 2008 and D-446 of 2008 as both these petitions have been filed against the common order passed by the learned trial Court and Appellate Court and the facts, law and evidence are common in these petitions.
2. ' By these petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner has challenged the vires of order, dated 30-8-2007 passed by the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-East whereby revision applications filed by the petitioner were dismissed thereby maintaining the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-IV, Karachi-East in Private Complaint No,250 of 2002 Hussainali J. Merchant v. Akhtar Ali J. Merchant and others and acquitted the respondents Nos.2 and 3 under section 249-A, Cr.P.C.
3. ' The facts leading to rise to the present petitions in brief are that the petitioner and respondents Nos.2 and 3 are real brothers inter se, respondent No,3 is wife of respondent No,2. There was some dispute in between the parties which :ompelled the petitioner to file direct Complaint No,250 of 2002 stating therein that on 25-7-1994 he along with his family members was away from his House No,236, Amynabad, Ismailia Garden Cooperative Housing Society, Martin Road, Karachi at about 5- 00 p.m. The respondents Nos.2 and 3 illegally and unlawfully removed the furniture, equipment, carpets, chairs and the household articles and things from the hall, dinning hall and the kitchen of the said house, belonging to him and kept the said articles outside the house in open space and thereafter locked and changed the locks of the entrance door to the hall and kitchen and also locked the rear door of the petitioner's front bed-room, which resulted in restraining him to use the same. The respondents also locked the third bed-room of the house and fixed iron door in the passage in compound leading to the rear of the said house, where there is washing place for washing clothes and utensils, as such, he filed a Direct Complaint bearing No,250 of 2000 wherein some evidence was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate and after recording some evidence, the respondents Nos.2 and 3 filed application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Which was allowed and they were acquitted from the charge. After acquittal of the respondents Nos.2 and 3, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revisions Nos.5 of 2002 and 28 of 2003 which* both were transferred and entrusted by the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi-East to learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-East where the application filed by the respondents about maintainability of the revision application, after hearing of the learned counsel for the parties, was allowed and. Dismissed the revision applications vide order, dated 30-8-2007, hence the present petitions.
4. ' We have heard petitioner in person. Mr. Adnan A. Karim, A.A.-G. For respondent No,1 and Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed, Advocate for respondents Nos.2 and 3.
5. ' The petitioner vehemently contended that the revision filed by him before the learned lower Court was maintainable and the learned trial Court wrongly dismissed the revision application as after acquittal of the accused, the revision application before the Sessions Judge was competent and the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the revision application acted illegally, as such, the order passed by the learned Appellate Court is illegal, inoperative and is of no legal consequences.
6. 'Mr. Adnan A. Karim, A.A.-G. And Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed, Advocate for respondents vehemently contended that the respondents have been acquitted from the charge under section 249-A, Cr.P.C.
7. And against the acquittal, appeal lies before this Court and revision does not lie before the Sessions Court, as such learned lower Appellate Court rightly dismissed the revision application filed by the petitioner and the orders passed by both the learned lower Courts do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
8. ' We have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and have gone through the entire material available before us.
9. Admittedly the private respondents have been acquitted from the charge under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. By the learned Judicial Magistrate and against the acquittal of the respondents appeal under section 417(2-A), Cr.P.C. Is competent before this Court and revision against the acquittal is not maintainable before the learned Appellate Court, in view of subsection (5) of section 439, Cr.P.C. Subsection (2-A) of section 417 provides filing of appeal before this Court within 30 days from the date of passing the order of acquittal, as such, revision against the acquittal of the respondents in any way was not competent before the learned lower Court. The same point also came for consideration before the learned Lahore High Court in the case of Mst. Memona Akhtar v.
10. Magistrate Section 30, Wazirabad, Gujranwala and others reported in 2005 M LD 896; wherein the learned Lahore High Court while dealing with the same proposition involved in the present case, was pleased to observe that the preponderance of the view has been that the revision petition is not maintainable against the order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, however, remedy of filing an appeal under section 417(2-A), Cr.P.C. Is available and was pleased to further observe that the revision in that case was not competent before the Sessions Court against an order which is challengeable in appeal under section 417(2A), Cr.P.C. The view expressed in the aforesaid case is fully attracted to the circumstances of the present case.
11. ' The revision application filed by the petitioner before the. Learned lower Court was dismissed on 30-8-2007 and the order passed by the lower Court has been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition filed on 29-2-2008 which shows that the petitions have been filed after a delay of about six months from the date of order impugned herein, therefore, in our humble opinion, the principles of laches are fully attracted and no explanation has been brought on record to show as to why the above petitions have been filed after such an inordinate delay. On this score also the constitutional petitions are not maintainable.
12. ' After considering the material available on record, we are of the opinion that the acquittal of the private respondents could not be challenged by filing of revision before the learned Sessions Judge and only appeal is competent under subsection (2A) of section 417, Cr.P.C. Which could be filed within 30 days from the date of passing the impugned order, which limitation has been expired and after expiry of the limitation period a valuable right accrued in favour of the private respondents.
13. ' Both the above petitions were dismissed by us vide our short order, dated 26-1-2009, for the reasons to be recorded later on and the above are the reasons of the same.