The appellant got registered case FIR No. 393 under Sections 420, 468, 471, PPC on 20.10.2012, at Police Station Kassowal, District Sahiwal against Respondents No. 2 to 7.
2. The allegation against the said respondents was that of committing fraud by way of forgery .
3. In order to prove its case prosecution produced, as many as seven witnesses. The learned trial Court after scrutiny of the evidence concluded the trial in favour of the respondents by observing that the prosecution failed to prove its case against them vide judgment dated 18.7.2016, impugned, herein.
4. Learned, counsel for the appellant argued at length and submitted that the impu gned judgment was out-come of misreading and non-reading of evidence; that there was complete concordance in the PWs regarding mode and manner of occurrence, that, the forged document/notification was available on the file but the learned trial Court acquitted all the respondents for the reasons, not supported either by the record or prosecution evidence, thus, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
5. I have considered the points raised at the bar and have gone through the record.
6. The learned trial Court acquitted the respondents for the following reasons:--
(i) The appellant failed to avail the appropriate remedy by way of appeal under Section 5 of Punjab Irrigation and Drainage Authority Farmers Organization (Elections) Regulations, 201 1;
(ii) During the investigation, the case was found bogus and the cancellation report was prepared.
7. The complainant being PW.1 had admitted material suggestions during the cross -examination like political rivalry and that Patwari Circle got executed process from him and one Kamal Din on 20.6.2010. He further admitted that he did not mention the name of accused Liaqat Ali SDO in his application and that he made no attempt to get the forged notification cancelled.
8. It may be observed that assessment of evidence in appeal against acquittal is different than the appeal against conviction and single circumstance creating doubt is enough to acquit, an accused. The consistent view of the superior Courts is that appraisal of evidence in appeal against acquittal is different than the appeal against conviction. Reliance in this context can be placed, on "The State v. Muhammad Sharif and 3 others " (1995 SCMR 635), and the relevant observations of their lordships are as follows: "There is marked difference between appraisement of evidence in the appeal against conviction, and in the appeal against acquittal. In the appeal against conviction, appraisal of evidence is done strictly and in the appeal against acquittal, the same rigid method of appraisement is not to be applied as there is already finding of acquittal given by the Court or Courts below after proper analysis of evidence made or done according to law. In the acquittal appeal, interference is made only when it appears that there has been gross misreading of the evidence which amounts to miscarriage of justice. In an appeal against acquittal, Supreme Court could not, on principle, ordinarily interfere and instead would give due weight and consideration to the findings of the Court acquitting the accused.
This approach is slightly different from that in an appeal against conviction in which leave is granted only for re- appriasment of evidence, which then is undertaken so as to see that benefit of every reasonable doubt should be extended to the accused."
9. I have gone through the available record and impugned, judgment and found, no perversity or illegality . The impugned judgment is based on valid reasoning warranting no interference of the Court.
10. In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed, in limine.