' MANZOOR AHMED MALIK, J.---Sheikh Umar Farooq, appellant filed this appeal against the judgment dated 22-1-2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Taxila District Rawalpindi whereby, the learned Magistrate acquitted respondents Nos.1 and 2 from the charge in case F.I.R. No,268 dated 25-6-2005 registered under sections 420/467/468/471, P.P.C. At Police Station Taxila, District Rawalpindi.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant moved an application (Exh-PA) for registration of case against respondents Nos.1 and 2 namely Mehfooz Elahi and Talat Masood respectively with the allegation that he along with his close relatives is owner in possession of land measuring eighteen Marlas situated in Khasra No,1436/1437, Khatoni No,537/540, Khewet No,293 at Mauza Ghaila Khurd, Tehsil Taxila and after the purchase of said land, they constructed houses and shops on the same. Out of said land, nine Marlas were purchased by Sheikh Muhammad Yousaf (father of the complainant/appellant) and Sheikh Noor Elahi (real paternal uncle Taya of the complainant) through registered Sale-deed No,1417 dated 1-1-1958 from original owners Mst. Ajaib and Mir Haider whereas, remaining nine Marlas were purchased by Sh. Muhammad Saeed (real brother of the complainant) from Mehfooz Elahi and Talat Masood through registered Sale-deed No,2694 and 2695 dated 13-8-1996. After the purchase of said land, the complainant and his relatives made constructions and obtained connections of electricity and sui gas etc. However, respondents Nos.
1. And 2, seeing the increase in the price of the land, with mala fide intention to usurp the land, filed, various false applications against the complainant and his relatives but could not succeed.
Thereafter, they instituted a false civil suit against the complainant and his brother which was later on withdrawn. Complainant side also instituted a civil suit against respondent No,1 wherein, an injunction order was passed by the learned Civil Judge, Rawalpindi respondent No,1 also filed application in the Anti-Corruption Establishment against the complainant party which were dismissed after inquiry. Thereafter, Mehfooz Elahi respondent No,1 through a bogus general power of attorney, in presence of injunction order, got transferred the said land in his favour through registered Sale-deed No,9768 dated 4-9-2004, hence, this case.
3. The police, after investigation, submitted the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Accused persons/respondents Nos.1 and 2 were summoned, formal charge was framed against them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4 . In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined four witnesses i,e, P. W.1 (Sh. Umar Farooq, complainant), P.W.2 (Sagheer Ahmad. Girdawar). P.W. 3 (Muhammad Fayyaz S.-I.) and P.W.4 (Faqir Hussain S.-I.). In their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C, respondents Nos.1 and 2 denied the charge.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of this appeal, contends that the impugned judgment is result of 'misreading and non-reading of the evidence available on the file; that there is sufficient incriminating material available against respondents Nos.1 and 2 for their conviction in this case; that non-implication of legal heirs of Muzaffar Khanum etc. Is not fatal for the case of the prosecution; that the respondents Nos.1 and 2 have prepared a bogus and forged power of attorney and deprived the complainant side of their valuable property; that the respondents Nos.1 and 2 may be punished in accordance with law.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. Valid and convincing reasons have been given by the learned trial Court for the acquittal of respondents Nos.1 and 2. Judgment of acquittal can only be interfered if reasons are arbitrary fanciful or non-existent whereas, in the instant case, the situation is altogether different. In paragraph No,11, the learned trial Court has given reasons for acquittal of respondents Nos.1 and 2 which are as under:- "11. In view of above discussed depositions made by P. Ws. And perusal of file make one thing very clear that there was dispute between the complainant and accused about landed property.
Accused Mehfooz Ellahi also got registered a case F.I.R. No,469 dated 15-9-2001 under section 420,468,471, P.P.C., Police Station Taxila against the complainant of this case Sh. Umer Farooq and Sh. Muhammad Saeed for the forgery of Jamabandi and registered sale deed wherein Shaikh Umer Farooq etc. Were acquitted vide order dated 23-9-2008 passed by learned J. Magistrate Sec 30, Taxila. A civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction titled as Sh. Muhammad Saeed v.
Muzaffar Khanum etc. Is also pending adjudication in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Rawalpindi wherein mutation Nos.10366, 10367 and 10368 dated 31-7-2000 has been challenged and cancellation thereof has been prayed being result of fraud, illegality etc. Photocopy of the plaint of said suit is available with the file which was produced by complainant before the police during investigation. As per allegation made in the F.I.R. And statement of accused recorded before this court, it is manifest that 9-marlas of total land measuring 18-marlas was admittedly in the ownership of Meer Ahmad and after his death the same was devolved upon his widow Mst. Ajaib and his son Meer Haider. It has been further alleged by complainant that the said Mst. Ajaib and Meer Haider sold the said land through registered Sale-deed No,1417 dated 1-9-1958 to his father Sh. Muhammad Yousaf and his uncle Sh. Noor Ellahi, however, said registered sale-deed could not be incorporated in the Revenue Record, because the same was being used for residential purposes, however, accused Mehfooz Ellahi got attested the inheritance mutation No,10366, 10367 and 10368 dated 31-7-2000 in favour of legal heirs of Meer Haider namely Muzaffar Khanum etc. And on the basis of said mutation, general power of attorney was executed in favour of accused Mehfooz Ellahi by Muzaffar Khanum etc. And on getting knowledge of the same, when accused instituted civil suit against him, complainant and others instituted civil suit in the civil Court, Rawalpindi. It is the civil Court Rawalpindi which is to decide the fate of the dispute between the parties. If mutation Nos.10366, 10367 and 10368 dated 31-7-2000 are not declared as null and void as prayed by the complainant, at the disposal of said civil suit 'by learned Civil Court, Rawalpindi, then all the subsequent documents including general power of attorney etc. Shall be considered genuine and legal. It is well settled law that any aggrieved person can avail civil as well as criminal remedies simultaneously; however, conviction of accused should be based on established version of the prosecution through evidence, beyond any shadow of doubt. Liberty of any person cannot be jeopardized on the presumption that the document complained as forged one in the F.I.R. Would be declared null and void by Civil Court also. The complainant has not made any application for registration of case against the said legal heirs of Meer Haider namely Muzaffar Khanum etc. Who allegedly got attested the said inheritance mutation in connivance with accused Mehfooz Ellahi and then got registered general power of attorney in favour of accused Mehfooz Ellahi. If the complainant feels aggrieved against the accused Mehfooz Ellahi and Taehat Masood who allegedly prepared forged documents based upon the said general power of attorney, then the behaviour of complainant regarding non-implication of said Muzaffar Khanum etc. Is beyond understanding by any prudent mind, which lead to only conclusion that accused cannot be convicted, hence, prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, benefit of which must go to the accused persons. Hence, the accused are hereby acquitted."
7. Even otherwise, when a court of competent jurisdiction acquits an accused of the charge after a regular trial, then double presumption of innocence is attached to the said acquittal and until and unless that is not found arbitrary, fanciful, perverse, against the record and has led to grave miscarriage of justice, the said acquittal cannot be interfered with. Reference can advantageously be made to the case of Iftikhar Hussain. And others v. The State (2004 SCM R 1185) wherein the Hon'ble apex Court has held as under:-- "13. It is well-settled principle of criminal administration of justice that when an accused is acquitted of the charge, he enjoys double presumption of innocence in his favour and Courts, seized with acquittal appeal under section 417, Cr.P.C. Are obliged to be very careful in dislodging such presumption. Undoubtedly, two views are always possible while appreciating the evidence available on record, therefore, for such reason and in order to avoid the multiplicity of litigation, it is always insisted that the Court 'should follow the recognized principles for interference in the acquittal judgment as held in the case of Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 11 that the Appellate Court seized with the acquittal appeal under section 417, Cr.P.C. Is competent to interfere in the order challenged before it provided it has been established that the trial Court has disregarded material evidence or misread such evidence or received such evidence illegally.....
' In this regard further reliance is placed on the case of "Haji Amanullah v. Munir Ahmad and others"
(2010 SCM R 222), wherein at page 226, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under:-- "4 It is well-settled by now that in an appeal "the Court. Would not interfere with acquittal merely because reappraisal of the evidence it comes to the conclusion different from that of the Court acquitting the accused provided both the conclusions are reasonably possible. If however, the conclusion reached by that Court was such that no reasonable person would conceivably reach the same and was impossible then this Court would interfere in exceptional cases on overwhelming proof resulting in conclusive and irresistible conclusion; and that too with a view only to avoid grave miscarriage of justice and for no other purpose. The important test visualised in these cases, in this behalf was that the finding sought to be interfered 'with after scrutiny under the foregoing searching light, should be found wholly as artificial, shacking and ridiculous". Ali Sher v.
The State and 3 others PLD 1980 SC 317, State through Advocate-General N.-W.F.P., Peshawar v. Amir Nazar and others PLD 1981 SC 286, Mst. Habibun Nisa alias Bivi v. Zafar Tqbal and others 1981 SCM R 95, Nazir Ahmad v. Muhammad Din and others 1981 SCM R 415, Capt. Mahmood Jan v. Madad Khan and another 1981 SCM R 474, Ahmad, v. Crown PLD 1951 FC 107, Fateh Muhammad v. Bagoo PLD 1960 SC 286, Abdul Majid v. Superintendent and Remembrance of Legal Affairs, Government of East Pakistan PLD 1964 SC 422, Feroze Khan v. Capt. Ghulam Nabi PLD 1966 SC 424, Usman Khan v. The State PLD 1969 SC 293, Noora and another v. 'The State PLD 1973 SC 469, Abdul Rashid v. Umid Ali and others PLD 1975 SC 227, Taj Muhammad v. Muhammad Yousaf and others PLD 1976 SC 234, Farid v. Aslam PLD 1977 SC 4, Fazalur Rehman v. Abdul Ghani PLD 1977 SC 529 and Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamaraz Khan PLD 1985 SC 11."
' Reference is also made to the case of "Jehangir v. Aminullah and others" (2010 SCM R 491) and "Bashir Ahmad v. Fida Hussain and 3 others" (2010 SCM R 495).
8. Keeping, in view the afore-referred circumstances coupled with guidelines given by the apex Court of the country in the above quoted precedent case law, this Court is of the affirmed view that there is nothing in this case which could be deemed to be arbitrary, capricious, fanciful or against the record to warrant interference in the judgment of acquittal. Furthermore no grave miscarriage of justice has been done due to acquittal of respondents Nos.1 and 2 and there is no misreading or non-reading of the prosecution evidence as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant.
The nutshell of the discussion is that this appeal has no merits, which is hereby dismissed "in limine."