'SIKANDAR ZULQARNAIN SALEEM, J.---Through the instant special petition for leave to appeal, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 20-5-2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Layyah, whereby the private complaint filed by Muhammad Iqbal under sections 341/420/392/ 506/468/471 P.P.C. Was dismissed and Saeed Ahmad, Ghulam Sabbir, Muhammad Arshad and Mumtaz were acquitted of the charge.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned judgment is against the law and divorced from the facts. Further adds that the learned trial court has misread the evidence produced by the complainant; that witnesses Muhammad Akhtar and Muhammad Boota have fully corroborated the contents of plaint as well as evidence of the complainant.
3. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the available record.
4. It appears from available record that on 12-1-2009, Muhammad Iqbal made a report to Police Station Kot Sultan, Layyah; but ultimately the F.I.R. Of Muhammad Iqbal was cancelled and he was constrained to file a private complaint. It was alleged in the complaint before the learned Illaqa Magistrate that on 25-12-2008 at about 11:00 a.m. Respondents Nos.2 to 4 took his tractor trolley on rent for the carriage of bricks for Kot Sultan. When the driver of the complaint after loading the bricks reached at Kot Sultan, the respondents Ghulam Shabbir and Mumtaz Ahmad forcibly stopped the Tractor of complainant and the respondents Saeed and Muhammad Arshad snatched away the Trolley at gun point. Muhammad Akhtar, Ameer Muhammad, Muhammad Boota and Mulazim Hussain witnessed the occurrence.
5. According to section 417(2) Cr.P.C., if the order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such appeal to High Court as in the instant case, where the acquittal of respondents is passed in a case filed upon complaint. While going through the record, one could reach to an irresistible conclusion that appellant has filed no such application for grant of special leave to appeal from the order herein impugned. Relied on "Adz Ahmad v. Murez and 5 other (PLD 2008 Peshawar 104). As the instant petition had been filed with caption "P.S.L.A under section 417(2A), Cr.P.C.
6. I have noticed that four persons were charged under sections 506/ 392/420/471/468/341, P.P.C.
With the allegation that on 25-12-2008 at about 12:00 (Noon) the accused stopped the driver of complainant, Muhammad Akhtar when he was going to take 'Pacca Bricks' on his Tractor Trolley and also forcibly snatched away his Trolley on gun point and he was also physically tortured.
7. Admittedly the alleged occurrence was not witnessed by the complainant, who himself appeared as P.W.2. The only witnesses of ocular account were Muhammad Akhtar and Muhammad Boota, who appeared as P.W.1 and P.W.3 respectively. There is a glaring reflection of contradiction in the statements of P.W.3 with his own cursory statement. Muhammad Akhtar P.W.1 has also made contradictory statement to his cursory statement recorded earlier. The documentary evidence produced in the shape of 'Iqrarnama' by the complainant in support of his averments of his complaint regarding the ownership of trolley was exhibited as Exh.PC during the trial. That 'Iqrar Nama' produced by the complainant was prepared after the registration of F.I.R. i,e, F.I.R of alleged occurrence was registered on 12-1-2009 and Exh. P.C. Is dated 3-2-2009 meaning thereby prepared after the lodging of the F.I.R.
8. Accused Mumtaz Ahmad had produced 'Iqrar Nama' made between him and one Riaz Ahmad brother of the complainant, regarding the transfer of ownership of Trolley, dated 5-2-2008, which is available on the file and same has not been challenged by the Muhammad Iqbal complainant at any forum. The version of complainant in the presence of documentary evidence produced by him is repellant to the prudent mind and to the common sense. Moreover, while going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, one could safely say that/same is pregnant with doubts and inconsistencies. Relied on 'Haji Paio Khan v. Sher Biaz and others' (2009 SCM R 803), wherein it has been held as under:-- "It needs no reiteration that when an accused person is acquitted from the charge by a Court of competent jurisdiction then, double presumption of innocence is attached to its order, with which the superior Courts do not interfere unless the impugned order is arbitrary, capricious, fanciful and against the record."
' Moreover, findings of acquittal neither be reversed nor upset except when judgment is perverse, shocking and suffering from error. Wisdom can be derived from case-law reported as 'Muhammad Aslam v. Sabir Hussain and others' (2009 SCM R 985) and 'Haji Amanullah v. Munir Ahmed and others' (2010 SCM R 222). After going through the impugned judgment, I do not draw a different conclusion from that of what the learned Magistrate, hence, I don't feel hesitation to uphold acquittal of accused, resultantly, this petition is dismissed in limine.