' This criminal revision has been directed against the impugned order dated 28-8-1988 passed by Mr. Noor Ahmad Mirza, Magistrate 1st Class, Gujranwala, whereby respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were acquitted under section 249-A, Cr.P.C.
2. Briefly the prosecution case is that on 10-7-1986 at 6-00 p.m. Malik Muhammad Bakhsh, Magistrate 1st Class, Gujranwala sent a raid report to the S.H.O., Police Station Baghbanpura, Gujranwala to the effect that on 10-7-1986 at 5-00 p.m. On the orders of the A.D.C.(G), Gujranwala he alongwith the raiding party consisting of Ch. Nazir Ahmad, A.S.I., Farman All No,1222, Shamshad Ali No,1004, Muhammad Bashir No,1250, Muhammad Younus No,576, and Muhammad Rafiq No,1240, constables of Police Station Baghbanpura, Gujranwala and the complainant P.W.1 Abdul Rauf raided Raja Pumps, Street No,4, in front of Al-Race Hospital, Jinnah Road, Naushehra Road, Gujranwala. The raiding party was constituted after receipt of secret information that the said firm after illegally using the label of Messrs Golden Pumps Limited, Gujranwala and after affixing the said label was selling the pumps and due to that the real firm Golden Pumps Ltd. Had suffered financial loss and the people in general were also defrauded and counterfeited and low standard pumps were being sold. At the time of the raid, on the entry gate, `Raja Pumps' was written and inside the gate 31 Golden Pumps were found ready and on some pumps labels were being pasted.
One pump was in the process of completion and during the said process 'Golden Pump' had been written. The attempt was being made to show it as Golden Pump. During the raid the respondent No,1 whose name was known later on was enquired about the illegal use of the trade mark of Golden Pumps and registration of Golden trade mark was also demanded from him, but he stated that he had no registered trade mark with him. 31 finished pumps alongwith one pump process were secured. Respondents Nos.1 to 3 were found busy in making the pumps who were apprehended at the spot. Hence the present case was registered against respondents Nos.1 to 3 vide F.I.R. No, 327 dated 10-7-1986 at 6-00 p.m. At Police Station Baghbanpura, Gujranwala under section 420/482/485/486, P.P.C. The respondents were challaned and sent up for trial. A charge under section 420/481/485/486, P.P.C. Was framed on 20-10-1987, to which they denied and claimed trial.
3. P.W.1 Abdul Rauf, Managing Director of the firm who manufactures 'Golden Pumps' stated that the trade mark 'Golden' was registered in their name and on coming to know about the misuse of the trade mark he moved an application to the A.D.C.(G) to initiate legal proceedings, who deputed the Ilaqa Magistrate. So, on 10-7-1986 he alongwith the raiding party had reached Raja Industries at about 5-00 p.m. On 10-7-1986 where respondents Nos.1 to 3 were present and in his presence the Magistrate secured 31 finished Golden Pumps with counterfeited Golden Label and one unfinished pump vide memo. Exh.PA. Attested by him. The finished pumps were Exh.P.1/31 and unfinished pump was Exh.P.2. Statement of P.W.1 was recorded on 4-7-1988.
4. Respondents Nos.1 to 3 were acquitted by the learned trial Court vide its impugned judgment under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. The prosecution was given at least 22 opportunities to produce the P.Ws., but only P.W.1 could be produced. Thereafter, the evidence for the prosecution was closed by the trial Court and the respondents were acquitted of the charge.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The challan of the case was entered on 147-1987. The respondents were furnished with the copies of the statements of the P.Ws. On 12-10-1987. The respondents were charge-sheeted on 20-10-1987. The prosecution was afforded 22 opportunities, but only one P.W. Could be examined. Bailable warrants were issued against the P.Ws., but none appeared. The P.Ws. Were also summoned through non-bailable warrants of arrest, but even then none appeared. The prosecution was specifically provided last opportunity, but even then the evidence could not be produced by the prosecution.
6. The prosecution was afforded 22/23 opportunities to produce evidence. Bailable and non- bailable warrants of arrest were issued against the P.Ws. In this way, the trial Court had resorted to coercive measures, but the attendance of the P.Ws. Could not be procured.
7. Pursuant to the above discussion I am of the considered view that not interference against the acquittal in revisional jurisdiction is called for. In the circumstances the petition is dismissed.