' The present criminal revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 31-5-1980, whereby Rao Iqbal Ahmad Khan, Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, acquitted respondents Nos.1 to 3 by accepting their appeals filed against the judgment dated 8-4-1980 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby they had been convicted under sections 420 and 471, P.P.C. And had been sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs,20,000 each (Rs,10,000 for the offence under section 420, P.P.C. And Rs,10,000 for the offence under section 471, P.P.C.) or in default thereof to further imprisonment for three years (1-1/2 years under section 420, P.P.C. And 1-1/2 years under section 471, P.P.C.).
' The revision petition filed by the complainant for enhancement of sentence awarded to respondents Nos.1 to 3 was also dismissed by the learned appellate Court by the same judgment.
2. The brief facts of the case are that one Syed Naeem Haider filed a complaint with the police alleging that he had been cheated by the accused/respondents, as one of them, Haji Abdul Majeed, had entered into an agreement to sell with him through Muhammad Hussain Anwari in respect of the Plot No,100-F, Model Town, Lahore, on the basis of P.T.D. Issued by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Department, Government of Pakistan, which was in fact a forged document. After due investigation, the challan was submitted to the learned trial Court under the provisions of sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. However, the accused/respondents were charged under sections 420 and 471, P.P.C. To which they had pleaded not guilty. In support of the prosecution case, statements of 11 P.Ws. Were recorded. The accused/respondents had been examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Who had denied the charges levelled against them. The accused/respondent, respondent, Haji Abdul Majeed, had also produced defence evidence.
3. The learned trial Court had convicted and sentenced the accused/respondents as stated above.
They had filed appeals against their conviction and sentences, whereas the complainant had preferred a revision petition, contending for enhancement of their sentences. The learned appellate Court had allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused/respondents vide judgment, dated 31-5-1980, consequently dismissing the revision petition. Hence, the present criminal revision petition.
4. The present revision petition was admitted to regular hearing vide order dated 12-1-1982, inter alia, to consider the point whether or not the learned appellate Court had been in error to hold that the complaint in question was not competent as it should have been filed by the Settlement Authorities, in view of the provisions of section 195, Cr.P.C. Despite the fact that the alleged forged P.T.D. Had not been used by the accused/respondents as a piece of evidence in any judicial proceeding nor any forgery had been committed in the record of the Settlement Department.
5. Neither the petitioner nor his counsel has put in appearance to prosecute the present revision petition. However, it has been taken up for hearing with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State. It has been taken notice of that the learned appellate Court had also held that there was no finding to the effect as to whose signatures had been forged and by whom. In this respect, it had been further stated that admittedly, P.T.D. Being a public document issued by the Government of Pakistan, the relevant Department should have given the finding as to under whose signatures the said document had been issued and the said Department should have conclusively proved that the document in question was forged and not genuine document; and as the aforestated fact had not been proved in any manner, therefore, the case suffers from a fatal lacuna. Therefore, the Court is of the view that even if the trial in question was not void for lack of proper complaint, yet for the reasons stated above, the acquittal of respondents Nos.1 to 3 was justified and the impugned judgment being unexceptionable does not call for interference.
6. Furthermore, as it is an established principle that no interference with an order of acquittal will take place even if a different reasonable conclusion is possible on the basis of the evidence on the record and that the finding of acquittal can only be interfered with if it is found wholly artificial, shocking and ridiculous, or it is such a conclusion which no reasonable person would conceivably arrive at. In this respect, reliance is placed on Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 11.
7. In view of what has been stated above, the present criminal revision petition, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.