MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---Baitham Khan, complainant lodged FIR No, 53/14 dated 28.12.2014 against the respondents under - sections 506(ii), 34/147, P.P.C. At Police Station Danyore.
2. The brief facts of the case as highlighted in the FIR are that complainant Baitham Khan submitted a written application to the SHO Danyore against the respondents, complaining therein, that he and his brother Inayat are locked up in civil litigations and on the fateful day, his real brother cut down some trees, from the disputed land and he was on the way to police station for lodging of FIR, the respondents maltreated him and threatened to kill him. He was attacked by the respondents and thrashed. In the meanwhile one Ijaz son of Latif Ali Shah intervened and saved his life.
3. After completion of investigation challan of the case was put in the trial Court and the respondents were summoned to face trial on 12.5.2016 and case was posted for 12.5.2016 for attendance of respondents. On 12.5.2016 respondents/accused appeared before the trial Court and after supplying necessary documents the case was fixed for 20.5.2016 for framing of charge. On 20.5.2016 the learned trial Court after hearing the parties acquitted the respondents, which has been challenged by the appellant/complainant under section 417, Cr.P.C.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the acquittal order is perverse and arbitrary and the learned trial Court passed the order in a hasty and slip shod manner, causing miscarriage of justice, which is also against the criminal justice system as a prima facie case has been guillotined at the infancy stage. The learned counsel further submitted that the case be remanded to the trial Court for trial in accordance with law.
5. On the other hand the learned counsel for respondents submits that there is no worth reliance evidence on record to connect the respondents with the alleged crime and the appellant/complainant due to his ill ambitions has turned civil litigation into criminal one just to put pressure on the respondents to bow before the complainant as the complainant wants to achieve his nefarious ends by resorting to such tactics.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record with their valuable assistance. Before taking up other legal as well as factual controversies, I would like to mention that right of appeal has been provided to the complainant under section 417(2-A) as amended by Act XIX of 1994 and not under section 417, Cr.P.C., as section 417, Cr.P.C, relates to the filing of appeal by the State, if aggrieved from an order of acquittal.
7. On 20.5.2016, when the case was fixed for framing of charge and no application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C., was filed by the respondents, the trial Court acquitted the respondents from the charges. Application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C., could be filed at any stage of proceedings, but in the instant case, the learned counsel for respondents conceded that no such application was pending or filed by the respondents under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. There should have an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C., before the trial Court, which was never filed. The powers under section 249-A, Cr.P.C., cannot be exercised suo motu by the trial Court. The learned trial Court however afforded an opportunity of hearing to both the parties, and considered their view points. A little deviation from the procedure could be waived A if the ambition was to achieve the ends of justice, provided no prejudice was caused to either party.
8. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that since the proper procedure for acquittal of respondents has not been followed, the remand of the case will further the ends of justice. It may be clarified that the appellate Court should be very slow in remanding the cases, when whole record is available and the appellate Court could dispose of the case, at its own if dictates of justice, so demands.
9. The perusal of record shows, that the learned trial Court reached at a just and fair, conclusion and acquitted the respondents through a well reasoned judgment, which does not call for any interference of this Court.
10. Now it is a well settled principle of criminal justice system that there is a vast difference between an appeal against conviction and appeal against acquittal. In an appeal against conviction, whole the evidence is re-appraised, whereas in an appeal against acquittal due weight is given to the view of trial Court, as the accused is presumed innocent till proved guilty and after securing acquittal from a Court of competent jurisdiction, this presumption is multiplied. The appellate Court normally does not interfere in an appeal against acquittal, if after reappraisal of evidence, even it comes to a different conclusion then the one reached by the trial Court unless and until, there is grave miscarriage of justice or misreading of evidence on the part of trial Court.
11. The counsel for the appellant/complainant could not point out any such patent illegality, which may persuade me to interfere in the well reasoned judgment, which has been passed after due application of judicial mind.
12. The result is that the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.