UAZ NISARJI- This is a petition under section 561-A Cr.P.C.For quashment of the order dated 5.6.1988 passed by the learned Addl.Scssions Judge D.G.Khan on the revision petition moved by Noor Nabi respondent.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the petition arc that Mst.Noor Jahan wife of Noor Nabi respondent file a complaint against Iftikhar-ul-Hassan and other petitioners under sections 148,307,323,395,447,448,452,506/149 P.P.C, on 9.5.1982 for assauIting her Noor Nabi (her husband) and Salim Akhtar.
After recording the preliminary evidence the trial Court summoned Iftikhar-ul-Hassan etc.To face trial. On 3.4.1988 Mst. Noor Jahan moved an application in writing for the withdrawal of her complaint which was accepted and Iftikhar-ul-Hassan etc. Petitioners who were accused in the said case were acquitted.3. On 19.4.1988 her husband Noor Nabi filed a revision against the acquittal oflftikhar-ul-Hassan etc,in the Session Court which came up for disposal before Mr. Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Additional Sessions Judge ,D.G. Khan. By judgment dated 5.6.1988 he allowed the same, set aside the acquittal of Iftikhar-ul-Hassan etc. And directed the parties to appear before the learned trial Court for the disposal of Complaint case in accordance with law.
Hence this petition by Iftikhar-ul-Hassan and others.
4. It is urged that the revision against acquittal was not competent before the Sessions Court. Locus standi of Noor Nabi to file the revision petition has also been challenged. It is stated that since he had not instituted the complaint he was not competent to file the revision.
5. After the Law Reforms of 1972 remedy of private complainant to challenge acquittal is to file appeal after securing leave under section 417 (2) Cr.P.C. Section 439 sub-section (5) Cr.P.C, bars revisions where an appeal is provided. Section 417 sub-section (2) provides that the High Court on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf may grant Special Leave to Appeal from the order of acquittal. The emphasis is made on the application made to it by the complainant but in the present case, the complainant,namely, Mst Noor Jahan had not made any such petition to the High Court. Thus for this reason as well as for the non maintainability of the revision petition in the Sessions Court against order of acquittal, the order of the Additional Sessions Judge was not in accordance with law. Consequently, exercising powers under section 561-A Cr.P.C., I hereby set aside the same.
The petition is accepted.