' AJMAL MIAN, CI-- This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 22-8-1987 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court (Offences in Banks), Karachi in Case No, 42 of 1985 acquitting the respondent No,2, who was originally charged under section 406, P.P.C. For defrauding the petitioner to the tune of Rs,26,07,926 and the above charge was subsequently altered into section 420, P.P.C.
2. The prosecution in support of the case examined a number of witnesses and also produced certain documents. However, the learned Presiding Officer after perusal of the evidence, concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above judgment has filed the present petition.
3. Mr. S. Hamid Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner has candidly conceded that neither an appeal nor a revision is provided under the Offences in A Respect of Banks (Special Courts)
Ordinance, 1984, Ordinance IX of 1984 and, therefore. According to him writ is the appropriate remedy.
4. A perusal of the grounds of the petition indicates that the petitioner is seeking appraisal of the evidence by this Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction as if it was to act as a Court of appeal. It cannot be denied that the view which found favor with the learned Presiding Officer could have been taken, it might be an erroneous view, but cannot be said to be perverse.
Additionally, the intention of the laws maker was evident from the provisions of the Ordinance that no acquittal appeal or revision is provided for the obvious reason, namely, to curtail the period of litigation. We are inclined to hold that mere fact that the. Ordinance has not provided any appeal or revision would not entitle the petitioner to file a Constitutional petition for impugning an acquittal judgment. Even in case of acquittal appeal the appellate Court is very slow in interfering with the acquittal order what to say about the writ petition. This point has been inter alia dealt with in an unreported judgment of Division Bench of this Court, dated 21-6-1988 in the case of Muhammad Sadiq and another v. Anver Majeed and another in Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-956 and 957 of 1986.
5. In our view, the petition has no merits and it is, therefore, dismissed in limine.