Respondent No. 1/accused namely Muhammad Naeem was prosecuted to acquittal by the learned Trial Court/Magistrate Section-30, Arifwala vide judgment dated 15.11.2006 in a case registered vide FIR No. 287/1999 dated 4.6.1999 under Sections 468/420/471/424, PPC at P.S. City Arifwala, the same judgment of acquittal of respondent has been assailed through instant appeal on the grounds that learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the contentions of the appella nt and the impugned judgment being in-equitas and invidious has caused miscarriage of justice to appellant, the same needs to be reversed to conviction in accordance with law .
2. Briefly speaking the prosecution story as disclosed by complainant Sardar Rehman Jameel in FIR is that on 8.10.1998 he appointed respondent/accu sed Muhammad Naeem as his special attorney and on 19.11.1998 he revoked the same and as such the respondent/accused was not competent to transfer the property but the respondent with mala fide intention by way of fraud transferred the property measuring 28 kanals in favour of his real sister Rasheedan Bibi by misusing the powers designated in the revoked power of attorney . Respondent Naeem had got transferred the property measuring 48 kanals owned by her sister in the name of the complainant and obtained a fraudulent decree from the Court of learned Civil Judge, Arifwala in favour of Mst. Rasheedan Bibi.
Respondent/accused by way of fraud had transferred property in favour of Farooq, Khazir and Mst. Rasheedan Bibi, owned by the complainant and also got transferred property of Mst. Rasheedan Bibi in favour of the complainant. The complainant alongwith PWs approached to the respondent who imparted threats to the complainant. Hence, instant FIR.
3. After the conclusion of investigation, report u/S. 173, Cr.P.C. was prepared and submitted before the Court for trial by placing the name of respondent/accused in column No. 3.
4. At the conclusion of trial, respondent/accused was acquitted by the learned trial Court. Hence, instant appeal against acquittal.
5. It is worth mentioning here that the instant appeal was admitted for regular hearing on 30.10.2007 and the respondent was summoned.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that learned trial Court has mis-read the prosecution evidence and has erred in law in acquitting the respondent. Further submitted that the impugned judgment of acquittal of respondent is unpalatable and miscarriage of justice has been caused, therefore, it is fit case for reversion of acquittal into conviction.
7. Arguments of learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned DPG and learned counsel for the respondent/accused have been heard. Impugned judgment as well as summoned record has been gone through.
8. The reasons assigned by the learned trial Court to record acquittal of the respondent-are cogent, persuasive, ample, and do not appear to be unjust, any result of mis-reading or non-reading of material evidence produced by the complainant. No reason exists to differ with the reasoning advanced by the learned trial Court to acquit the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to convince this Court to interfere in the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court which even otherwise seems to be well justified. Impugned judgment has not been explored unsavory , unpalatable and iniquitous to miscarriage of justice. The respondent is in dock since, 1999 and now we are fleeting in year, 2015 and as such he has met sufficient ordeal, therefore, while relying upon ex cathedra judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in PLD 1985 SC 11 and PLD 2011 SC 554, the instant appeal having no merits is dismissed and impugned judgment of acquittal is maintained and upheld.