1. JUDGMENT.RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J. --- This appeal has been directed against the order passed by the learned Shariat Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir dated 24.12.2012, whereby the order passed by the learned Tehsil Criminal Court Pallandri dated 28.04.2012 was upheld.2. Facts as emerged out from this appeal are thatF.I.R. No. 113 was registered against the accused under sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 447, APC on 21.05.2009 at Police Station Pallandri. It is stated in the F.I.R. That on 21.05.2009 at 10:30 a.m., the complainant was present inPallandri Bazar when he was informed through telephone that some people are dismantling the house (Dub) of the complainant. On receiving information, the complainant reached home and saw that accused No. 1 to 14 (as mentioned in FIR) who were armed with weapons like Kudal, Lever and Hammers were demolishing the house of the complainant and destroying the household items. The accused thredtened to the complainant that if he resists he will be shooted. The accused in furtherance of common object with criminal intention, demolished the house and also damaged household items and caused damage to the tune of Rs. 200000/-. The accused persons also hurled stones on the family members of the complainant and neighbours. On listening hue & cry, lmtiaz S/o Yaqoob, Abdul, Jabbar- S/O Ishfaq, Shahid S/o Muhammad Azad & other residents of village Pallandri reached on the scene and witnessed the occurrence. In the meantime police reached on the spot and the accused ran away.
2. During investigation, on receipt of medico-legal report by the doctor Sections 337A-F1, 440, 448, and 452, APC were added after getting the legal opinion from PDSP. On completion of investigation, challan was submitted. During pendency of trial, the accused moved an application under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. The Trial Court after hearing the parties, acquitted the accused of the charge. Feeling dissatisfied from the order of the Trial Court, the complainant filed an appeal before the Shariat Court. The learned Shariat Court through the impugned order dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the Trial Court, hence this appeal.3. The learned counsel for the appellant hasargued that the judgment/order of the Shariat Court is against law and facts of the case as the same has been passed without examining the relevant record, therefore, the same is not sustainable in eye of law. He added that the learned Shariat Court has committed a gross illegality while upholding the acquittal order passed by the Tehsil Criminal Court on an application moved under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C.He further added that respondents were duly .Nominated in' the. F.I.R.
3. With attribution of specific roles and after investigation challan was . Submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction and there was overwhelming evidence available with the prosecution, but the' learned Trial Court accepted the application under Section "249-A, Cr.P.C. And acquitted the accused without assigning 'any reason which is the pre-requisite condition for acquittal under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. He added that learned first Appellate Court has also not taken into consideration the illegality committed by the Trial Court while upholding the order of the Trial Court. He further added that no fair opportunity was provided to the complainant to prove the case and without recording the evidence, impugned order was passed which is against the natural principle of justice. He added that it is settled principle of law that without giving opportunity to the prosecution to produce the evidence, acquittal order cannot be passed. He maintained that both the Courts have not given any concrete reasons for acquitting the accused. He further added that the learned Shariat Court while passing the impugned order failed to take into consideration that the Trial Court completely overlooked the evidence which was available in the form of medical report and the statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. As well. In this sense the Trial Court passed the acquittal order in a slipshod manner.4. On the other hand, Sardar Mushtaq Hussain,Advocate, while appearing on behalf of the accused has strongly opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant-appellant and submittedthat the Order impugned before this Court is perfect and legal. He added that the Trial Court has accepted the application under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. And acquitted the accused after coming to the conclusion that the charge is groundless. He further added that Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Vests power tothe Trial Court to acquit the accus, J any stage of the trial, if no material is available against the accused.
4. He added thatonce acquittal order has been passed there must be strong and unexceptional reasons to interfere with the same. He further submitted that a false case was lodged against the accused and there was no material available to prove the same. He further submitted that complainant had already compromised with 3 accused. This act itself made the case doubtful and negated the prosecution story. He lastly argued that no incriminating material recovered from the accused. Even, the medical report does not support the prosecution version.5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused, the record with utmost care. Before proceeding with the matter, we would liketo observe that Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Was enacted to ensure the speedy trial of the criminal cases and to save the people from the agony of the trial. In the cases in which the charge is groundless and there is no-probability of conviction in the offence, the Magistrate is fully competent to pass the acquittal order while assigning the reasons. This Section' is exception to normal rule that acquittal take place after full trial. There is no impediment in the way of Trial Court to acquit the accused of the charge under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. At any stage of the case, even if the charges is not framed. The expression "at any stage' used in Section 249A, Cr.P.C., has nothing to do with recording of the prosecution evidence. Party can move for acquittal at any stage of the proceedings and there is no legal bar or requirement that application for acquittal under Section 249- A, Cr.P.C. Can only be moved before the Trial Court after the recording of evidence of all witnesses. Words "at any stage" in Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Denote that application under above-said provision can be filed even after prosecution evidence has been recorded or while exercise of recording evidence is going or when exercise is over6. The crux of above discussion is that this power can be exercised at any stage during the pendency of the trial which initiates after submission of report under Section173, Cr.P.C. In the Court. The case of the prosecution is that. ' the complainant who is resident of Pallandri and residing near at Ratta Gala was informed on telephone that some people exterminating his house 'dab'. On this information he came back to his house and saw the "accused armed with weapon like spade and hammer, etc. While demolishing the house. They also destroyed the furniture and utensils worth Rs. 2,00,000/-. During the course of investigation in the support of the version of the prosecution no such material was provided, even the investigating officer did not confiscate any destroyed furniture as alleged in the FIR. From the record it transpires, that the house which was allegedly tried to demolish was constructed over the land measuring 2 marlas out of which 1 made is of crown land, whereas other one marla belongs to the accused-respondents. The accused have also constructed a stair and gutter in the land belonging to the accused-respondents. In such-like situation, when there is nothing on record regarding the ownership of the land on which the house was constructed, both the Courts, below are fully justified to hold that the land was encroached one. In our estimation, no F.I.R. Can be lodged to give protection to an illegal encroachment over the land of a true owner. Furthermore, it is also un-rebutted even before this Court that a compromise has been effected with the principal accused, therefore, in such-like situation both the Courts have rightly come to the conclusion that the case of the prosecution has become doubtful. Medical report also does not support the prosecution case and in such-like cases remedy has been provided under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. To move the Trial Court for acquittal and the Court after hearing both the parties if come to the conclusion that the charge is groundless and there is no probability of conviction, can acquit the accused at any stage. For exercising, power under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C., there is no requirement to record the evidence. As we have observed in the preceding para thateven if the charge has not been the Court is fullycompetent to acquit the accused under said statutory provision in the cases in which no concrete evidence is available and charge is found to be groundless and the trial would be a futile exercise. Surprising aspect of this case which has been taken into consideration by the Trial Court is that in F.I.R. Nothing is mentioned regarding injury of any person, but they produced the copy of medical report in respect of one injured lady which seems to be procured with the connivance of medical staff, therefore, the Trial Court has rightly observed that this document is doubtful. This is a case of unique nature in which to grab the land of the accused- respondents, a false case was lodged and accused-respondents were forced to face the litigation.
5. In such-like situation, the Trial Court has rightly observed that instead of the accused the proceedings under Section 447, APC should have been initiated against the complainant to discourage such-like practice in future. We agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the accused that once acquittal order has been passed, there must be strong and unexceptional reasons to set aside the same. It is settled principle of law that the acquittal order passed in favour of an accused has double presumption of innocence. Until the acquittal order is found perverse, arbitrary and fanciful, the Courts always are reluctant to interfere with the same. There is plethora of judgments of superior Courts on the point that once an accused is acquitted by the Court of competent jurisdiction, for setting aside the acquittal order, there must be some extraordinary compelling reasons. Our view is supported by the judgment of this Court in case titled Masood Hussain & 2 others v. Ghazanfar Ali & 3 others [2005 SCR 272]. It was held as under:---"---This Court can interfere only in acquittal orders if it is proved that the same are perverse, arbitrary and contrary to record of the case."Furthermore, this Court in a case titled Muhammad Afzal v. Mst. Riaz Begum & others [2004 SCR 140] while relying ona reported case titled Mirza Noor Hussain v. Farooq Zaman and 3 others [1993 SCM R 305] held asunder:---"It may also be mentioned that in an appeal against the acquittal the Supreme Court would not on principle, ordinarily interfere and shall give due weight and consideration to the findings of Court acquitting the accused and the Court shall avoid re-appraisal of evidence. . ."What has been discussed above we do not find any substance in this appeal as we failed to find out any perversity in the acquittal order passed by the Trial Court and upheld by the Shariat Court. Resultantly, this appeal stands dismissed.