Muhammad Amjad petitioner was bulk Depot Incharge at Pasrur from 19-5-1975 to 9-9-1975 under Punjab Agricultural Development and Supplies Corporation. He was reported against for an offence under section 406, P.P.C. By FA. Zafar, Manager of the Corporation on 16-9-1976 and formal F.I.R. Was registered on 22-10-1976, for misappropriation of fertilizer of the value of Rs.2,52,395.50. He was acquitted by the Magistrate Pasrur on 28-5--1986 under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. After closing some of the remaining evidence of the prosecution. There was revision against the order of the acquittal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot vide its order dated 7-11-1989 accepted the same and remanded the case for being proceeded with on merits. This order has been called in question under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused contended that against the order of acquittal no revision was competent to the Court of Session. He drew the attention of the Court to section 439, subsection (5), and section 417 (of Cr.P.C.). According to him against the order of the acquittal appeal was competent and so the revision petition should not have been entertained by the learned Additional Session Judge. He fortified his arguments by referring to Muhammad Arif v.
Master Muhammad Ashraf 1985 P Cr. L J 803 and Munawar Khan v. Shakil Ahmad and 2 others PLD 1989 Lah. 513. Contrary view point was canvassed from the other side and reliance was placed on Agha Shaida Kashmiri v. Government of the Punjab and 2 others 1982 P Cr. L J 773 and Muhammad Bakhsh v. Iqbal Ahmad, and the State. 1980 P 4CK. L J 191. Even if there is difference of opinion on the competency of the revision petition, while acting under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The matter must be remanded to the lower Court for decision on merits in the facts and the circumstance of the case.
3. It is an admitted faet that the petitioner was the Depot Incharge when allegedly the stock of the value of Rs.2,52,395.50 was uncounted for. As many as 32 witnesses were cited in the calendar and only 17 were examined. The rest of the evidence was closed by the learned Magistrate and order of acquittal recorded. The learned Additional Sessions judge' in his detailed and exhaustive order has pointed out how perfunctorily the witnesses were summoned or most of the witnesses not even summoned and like a civil suit burden placed upon the complainant to produce the evidence. It was a challan case and it was the duty of the Court itself to summon the witnesses properly and, even to use coercive measures for their attendance. Only after exhausting all, legal available methods for forcing their attendance, the Magistrate could have closed the evidence. The whole approach was illegal and incorrect.
4. The petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.