' MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J.---Through instant criminal appeal filed under section 417(11), Cr.P.C., the appellant has challenged the impugned order and judgment dated 7-6-2013, passed by learned Assistant Commissioner/SubDivisional Magistrate, Chitral, whereby the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 were acquitted in case F.I.R. No,313 dated 13-4-2011, under section 147/149 P.P.C., registered at Police Station Chitral and also ordered the appellant to pay Rs,5000 as damages.
2. Briefly, facts of the case are that complainant Abdul Raziq lodged report against the respondents for attacking him with hammer causing injuries and also criminally intimidating him. Initially case under sections 506/504/147/149 P.P.C. Was registered but later on during investigation, sections 506/504 P.P.C. Were deleted by the prosecution and after completion of investigation, challan against respondents/accused was submitted under sections 147/149, P.P.C. In the court of SDM, Chitral.
3. The learned Trial Court, after framing of formal charge against respondents/accused summoned the prosecution evidence. After examination of eight witnesses, statements of accused/ respondents were recorded under section 342, Cr. P. C.,wherein they opted to be examined on oath and to produce defence evidence. Their statements on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. As well as statements of DWs were recorded. After shearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the respondents/accused were acquitted by the learned trial Court vide order and judgment dated 7-6-2013, while the appellant was ordered to pay Rs,5000 as damages to the respondents. Aggrieved from the same, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned trial Court had disbelieved the well-established and proved case of the prosecution, which was against the basic principle of appreciation of evidence. He further argued that the fine imposed by learned trial Court was not maintainable as before passing such order no show-cause notice was issued under section 250, Cr.P.C. To the appellant, hence the same was not maintainable. He further contended that the prosecution has proved its case against respondents with he help of strong ocular evidence and the learned Trial Court while delivering the impugned judgment in the shape of acquittal of respondents have committed illegality.
' Arguments heard, record perused.
5. Perusal of record reveals that the statements recorded by prosecution witnesses particularly, the statements of P.W.2 Ghazan Ali Shah and P.W.7 the complainant are self-contradictory. The perusal of record further established the fact that on the fateful day and time the acquitted accused were present in the court with regard to proceedings under section 107/151, Cr.P.C. And this fact was established by recording the statement of Naib Court of concerned Court. It is also a fact that on the application of wife of one of accused, the DIG, Malakand conducted an inquiry wherein the accused were found innocent, whereupon the concerned official who built a false case against the accused was charge-sheeted. It seems from the arguments of learned counsel for appellant that appellant has got no grievance with regard to the acquittal of accused but they only concern with the fine imposed by learned trial Court against the appellant.
6. The judgment of learned trial Court with regard to acquittal of respondents is based on cogent record and need no interference.
7. So far as contention of learned counsel for appellant that no show-cause notice was issued before awarding compensation to the appellant, the same has got legal force and it is well-settled by now that if the Court found that criminal proceedings initiated on the complaint or information, is false or frivolous, then the Court will have to give show-cause notice to the complainant or informant asking him why he should not pay compensation to each accused under section 250(2), Cr.P.C. It seems from the language of section 250, Cr.P.C. That the issuance of show-cause notice was mandatory and not directory. It is also settled principle of law that no one should be condemned unheard. The appellant was never given any show-cause notice before passing order for compensation, therefore, the learned trial Court has violated the provision of section 250, Cr.P.C.
Before passing the compensation order, which is not sustainable under the law.
' In these circumstances, while dismissing appeal against acquittal, the impugned order of acquittal is maintained, however, to the extent of the awarding of compensation amount, the judgment passed by learned trial Court is set aside.