1. ' The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 12th November, 1979 of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Badin in Sessions Case No, 8 of 1978, by which respondent No,2 was acquitted has filed the above acquittal appeal, on the facts and grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal.
2. ' The above appeal no doubt was only admitted on the point, that the Deputy Land Commissioner had no power to authorise the Assistant Sub-Land Commissioner to file a complaint under para. 31 of M.L.R.
115. However, the learned Advocate for the respondent before us conceded, that on account of the Notification No, S.L.S-23/1880 dated 13th May, 1974 such powers were given to the Deputy Land Commissioner and as such acquittal of the respondent on this ground was not justified.
3. ' However, the learned Advocate for the respondent submitted at bar before us, that Exh. 13 is not an authorization as contemplated by para. 31 of M.L.R. 115 and this fact has also been considered by the learned trial Court in its impugned judgment, while discussing point No,1, on the basis of which he acquitted the respondent. The learned Advocate for the respondent further submitted, that the original of Exh. 13 was not produced before the learned trial Court and consequently the conclusions and findings arrived at by the learned trial Court are fully justified.
4. ' The learned Additional Advocate-General appearing for the appellant has produced before us original of Exh. 13 and has also shown us office note dated 1st February, 1977, in respect of the prosecution of the respondent, on which the Deputy Land Commissioner by his endorsement dated 15th, February 1977 had agreed, but unfortunately neither original nor copy thereof was produced before the learned trial Court. In spite of this, he submitted, that since this document is availabe and has been shown to this Court today, the impugned judgment may be set aside and the case may be remanded back to the learned trial Court for retrial, in accordance with law.
5. ' The learned Advocate appearing for the respondent in reply to above submissions of appellant's counsel on the other hand submitted, that question of remand does not arise, as office note on which the endorsement of Deputy Land Commissioner dated 15th February, 1977 no doubt exists, was neither produced nor even mentioned in the complaint, or in the evidence of the complainant, before the learned trial Court and therefore, the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court is correct and legal. The learned Advocate for the respondent further submitted, that even cognizance of the complaint in question was wrongly taken by the learned trial Court, in the absence of the production of this note and the endorsement of Deputy Land Commissioner dated 15th February, 1977 and non-mention thereof in the complaint.
6. ' The learned Advocate appearing for the State at the outset submitted, that he does not support the above acquittal appeal, as the proper authorization in respect of filing of complaint as required by para. 31 of M.L.R. 115 was neither mentioned in the complaint nor produced before the learned trial Court nor by the complainant in his deposition, before the learned trial Court.
7. ' We have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before us and have gone through the record and proceedings of the learned trial Court and have perused the original of Exh.13 as well as office note dated 1st February, 1977, on which the endorsement of Deputy Land Commissioner dated 15th February, 1977 does exist. This is an admitted position that Exh. 13 is not signed by the Deputy Land Commissioner and as such it cannot be considered to be authorization under paragraph 31 of the M.L.R. 115, as rightly held by the learned trial Court. In view of this, we see no reason to disagree with the conclusions and findings of the learned trial Court in respect of Exh. 13 to the extent, that it was not an authorization as contemplated by para. 31 of M.L.R.
8. 115 and therefore we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, as the impugned judgment can also be sustained on the ground, that original note on which the endorsement of the Deputy Land Commissioner dated 15th February, 1977 exists authorizing Mukhtiarkar to file complaint in question was neither mentioned in the complaint nor produced before the learned trial Court and/or even referred to by the complainant in his deposition, before the learned trial Court.
9. ' Therefore we find no merits in the above acquittal appeal which is consequently dismissed.
10. ' However before parting with the above matter, we would like to mention, that the appellant will be at liberty to file a fresh complaint, if he is so advised, on the basis of office note on which the endorsement dated 15th February, 1977 written by the Deputy Land Commissioner exists.
11. ' We would like to make clear, that by above observation, we are not saying anything about the validity or otherwise of the endorsement in question vis-a-vis para. 31 of M.L.R.
12. 115.
13. ' The bail bonds, if any, executed by the respondent are hereby discharged.