ALI BAIG, J.---This petition has been filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 30-11- 2018 passed by the learned Administrative Judge Anti Terrorism Court No.1 Gilgit, whereby the learned trial court has dismissed the application filed under section 265-K, Cr .P.C. for acquittal of the petitioner/accused.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. does not lie against the impugned order passed by the learned trial court rather criminal revision petition lies against the impugned order passed by the learned Anti-T errorism Court Gilgit, thus, this revision petition is converted into criminal revision petition as under law there is no bar in converting one type/kind of proceedings into other kind of proceedings provided that the jurisdiction of that court remain intact. This Court/High Court can convert the application filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. into revision petition as provided under section 435, Cr.P.C. We are fortified in our view by the reported judgments of Sindh High Court reported in PLD 2000 Kar . 74 and PLD 1982 Karachi 130 .
3. It would not be incongruous to mention here that co-accused of the present petitioner/accused were acquitted by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 16-10-2017, which was challenged before this court through an appeal and this court vide judgment dated 22-11-2018 has dismissed the criminal appeal of present respondent/State and has maintained the judgment of the learned trial court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner/accused has not been directly charged in the FIR and FIR was registered against un-known persons and there is no single evidence against the petitioner/accused except confessional statement of the petitioner recorded under section 21-H of ATA 1997 by Superintendent of Police Gilgit, which is not admissible in evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that three co-accused of the present petitioner/accused namely Imran Hussain, Muhammad Younus and Imran Haider have already been acquitted by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 16-10-2017 and appeal against the acquittal was also dismissed by this court vide judgment dated 22-11-2018, hence the petitioner is also entitled to be acquitted.
5. On the other hand the learned Dy. Advocate General vehemently opposed this petition by contending that immediately after the occurrence, the petitioner/accused was absconded and he remained fugitive from law for a considerable period of time. The learned Dy. A.G. further argued that the petitioner/accused has confessed his guilt in his confessional statement recorded under section 21-H, ATA, 1997. The learned State counsel further argued that application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. against the dismissal of an application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. does not lie, hence the instant petition filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record' with their able assistance.
7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner/accused was not directly charged in the FIR rather the FIR was got registered/lodged against the unknown persons despite the fact that the occurrence was allegedly taken place at main Gilgit Bazzar at about 4:30 p.m. on 22-11-2016 as evident from the contents of FIR. No eye-witnesses has witnessed the occurrence and no any incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner/accused. In the instant case sole evidence against the petitioner/accused is confessional statement of the petitioner/ accused recorded under section 21-H, which too was recorded by the S.S.P . Gilgit and the said confessional statement was retracted by the petitioner/accused, hence alleged confessional statement of the petitioner/ accused which has been made before the police has no evidentially value as any confession made before the police is not admissible in evidence unless corroborated by other strong circumstantial evidence which is B lacking in the instant case.
8. Moreover , co-accused of the present petitioner namely Imran Hussain and Muhammad Younus who were also absconded have been acquitted by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 16-10-2017 and State had filed an appeal against the acquittal order of the learned trial court before this court which was also dismissed by this court vide judgment dated 22-11-2018, thus, the petitioner's case/role is quite at par/similar with the case of his above named co-accused, therefore, the petitioner/accused is also entitled to be acquitted.
9. In view of above discussion, this revision petition is allowed. Consequently , the petitioner/accused namely Sajjad Hussain son of Yousuf is acquitted of the charges under sections 324, 114/34, P.P.C. read with Section 6/7 ATA, 1997 case FIR No.342/2010 registered at police station City Gilgit. File.