' SAJJAD AHMED SIPRA, J.--The present Criminal Revision Petition impugns the judgment dated 8-8- 1990, whereby the Presiding Officer, Special Court No, II, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Sargodha Division, Sargodha, had acquitted respondent No, 1 in a case registered under section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, vide F. I. R. No,23 dated 6-2-1990 at Police Station Daud Khel, District Mianwali.
2. The brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the registration of case vide F.I.R. No, 23, as stated above, the Officers and the Jawans of the Frontier Corps of Pakistan Army had launched a raid on Bani Afghanan for the recovery of illicit arms and as a result thereof, 66 persons had been hauled up and produced before the police by the said Unit of the Pakistan Army. According to the recovery memo. The illicit arms were recovered,in bulk from a ditch in the area of Bani Afghanan and it is nowhere stated therein that any specific fire-arm had been recovered from any particular accused. Therefore, the learned trial Court, vide its impugned judgment dated 8-8-1990 had acquitted respondent No, 1 named as one of the accused in the case in question. It shall be convenient to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the impugned judgment hereunder:-- "In the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer had nowhere specifically mentioned that Klashnikov was in fact recovered from the accused. The plain reading of the complaint and formal F.I.R. Reveals that Army Officers had arrested 65 persons and the accused from Bani Afghanan and had recovered illicit Arms from them. Thereafter, the Army Officers produced the accused and 65 other persons, as well as the Arms allegedly recovered from them, before the police. Vide the recovery memo. The said Arms were taken into possession by the police.
Even the recovery memo. Dots not specifically mention that Klashnikov was recovered from the accused by the police in the presence of attesting witnesses. Under section 265(D), Cr.P.C., while framing the charge, the Court is to peruse the police report, or as the case may be, complaint and all of the documents and statements filed by the prosecution. The statements, under section 161, Cr.P.C. Of a witnesses, could only be used by the defence for contradicting the witnesses. I do not agree with the learned D.D.-A. That at the time of framing of the charge the Court has to take into consideration the statements of the PWs under section 161, Cr.P.C. And that too from the police file.
' In view of the above discussion, there is no material on the judicial file for framing a charge, under the Arms Ordinance, against the accused. I accept the application of the accused under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. And acquit him."
3. When the instant case was taken up for hearing on 2-12-1991, the Court had directed Mr. Mansoor Alamgir Qazi, A.A.-G. To find out and inform the Court whether or not the State had filed an appeal against the acquittal in the present case, and if so, what was its fate. Therefore, on the next date of hearing, the Court was informed that the State had filed an appeal (Criminal Appeal No,672/90) against the acquittal of a co-accused, namely, Mubarak Shah and that the said State Appeal had been dismissed vide judgment dated 22-10-1991 by a D.B. Of this Court, comprising of Sh. Riaz Ahmed and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ. Respectively. For easy reference the relevant para. Of the said judgment is reproduced below:-- "Report of the District Attorney at the foot of the challan shows that these arms were recovered by Jawans of the Frontier Corps from a Nalla, and not from any individual. The recovery memo prepared by the Investigating Officer is vague as well as illegal not conforming with the provisions of law so as to become basis of prosecution, as it has not been specifically mentioned that which of the arms was recovered from which of the person, and the particular recovery from a particular individual has not been shown in the recovery memo. This report of the District Attorney was ignored and yet the challan was submitted, and the respondent was arrayed before it to face his trial. In this view of the matter, we hold that the learned trial Judge had no option but to acquit the respondent under Section 265-K, Cr.P.C.
' Thus, the order impugned cannot be interfered with by this Court because it is not open any exception. Hence, this appeal has no merits, and the same is dismissed."
4. Therefore, the question for determination was: whether or not the present Revision Petition was competent in view of the State Appeal stated above having been filed against the same judgment i,e, being impugned herein, and as to the effect of the said appeal having been dismissed by the D.B. Of this Court, as stated above.
5. It may also be pointed out that the present criminal revision petition is not accompanied by a certificate from the District Magistrate to the effect that the State had refused to file the appeal against the order of acquittal under section 417, Cr.P.C. Therefore, it shall be pertinent to point out that according to the High Court Rules, 1-A of Part B of Chapter 1-A of Volume V, the Deputy Registrar of the High Court is specifically barred from receiving any petition for revision against an order of acquittal without the said certificate. The said rule is as follows:- "1-A. With reference to section 439(5), Criminal Procedure Code, the Deputy Registrar will not receive any petition for revision of an order of acquittal unless it is accompanied by a copy of an order of the Magistrate of the District, refusing to move the Provincial Government to appeal unde section 417, Criminal Procedure Code."
Therefore, on this sole ground the present criminal revision petition merits to be dismissed.
6. Further-more as stated above, the present criminal revision petition arises out of the same facts, and circumstances pertaining to one and the same incident in which it was alleged that the illicit arms were recovered and 66 persons had been hauled up and produced before the police by the Jawans of the Frontier Corps and in pursuance thereof the instant case was registered vide F.I.R. No, 23 dated 6-2-1990 at Police Station Daud Khel, District Mianwali, under section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965; and pursuant to the said case separate challans had been submitted against all the accused who were all acquitted by the learned trial Court, whereupon the State had filed Criminal Appeal No, 672 of 1990. 'The State v. Mubarak Khan' which was dismissed on merits by the learned Division Bench of this Court, comprising of Sh. Riaz Ahmad and Raja Afrasiab Khan, J.J. Vide judgment dated 10-11-1990 as stated above. Resultantly, no criminal revision was competent against the acquittal of 66 persons accused in the instant case.
7. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the present criminal revision petition is hereby dismissed in limine.