SAJJAD AHMED SIPRA, J.- The brief facts leading to the present writ petition are as follows:
1. That F.I.R No. 68/88 was registered at Police Station Mangtanwala, District Sheikhupura, against respondents Nos. 3 to 7 on 27.4.1988 under sections 506/440/148 PPC read with section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, on the complaint of the present petitioner. The allegation, in brief, was to the effect that the respondents had committed mischief by destroying and damaging the crops of the petitioner and that they had also removed the crops from the fields in question and had further committed rioting and threatened the petitioner with murder. Thq, learned trial Court had taken the cognizance of the case is question after the challan and had examined three out of six prosecution witnesses but thereafter the case had been adjourned on 23 occasions to allow opportunities to the prosecution to produce the rest of the witnesses. However, on the failure of the prosecution to do so, and pursuant to the submission of an application under the provisions of section 249-A Cr.P.C. By the respondents Nos.
3 to 7, the leamed trial Court had acquitted the said respondents by allowing the said application ride order dated 30.5.1991. The petitioner's revision petition preferred against the said order was also dismissed by the leamed Additional Sessions Judge ride his order dated 20.9.1992 maintaining the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court in favour of the said respondents. Hence, the present writ petition impugning both the orders of the learned lower Courts dated 30.5.1991 and 20.9.1992 stated above.
2. The leamed counsel for the petitioner was heard at length in support of the present writ petition.
Primarily his argument was to the effect that as the leamed trial Court had already recorded the testimony of three prosecution witnesses, therefore, no acquittal as ordered was made out and in addition thereto, the argument was that the leamed trial Court should have allowed more opportunities to the prosecution to produce remaining witnesses and that it should have adopted coercive measures to do so.
3. The Court has given its anxious consideration to the submission made in support of the present writ petition but is constrained to observe that no case as prayed for is made out. In this respect, it may be pointed out that once an acquittal had taken place and the legal remedy available to challenge the same had been availed without any success, and as such there being two orders in favour of the said respondents, no interference is called for even if another reasonable conclusion is possible, on the basis of the evidence on the record. The said established principle of law has been repeatedly reiterated by the superior Courts. Here it may suffice to refer to Ghulam Sikandar's case reported as PLD 1985 S.C. 11.
In the instant case, it needs to be further observed that incompetency of the prosecution, in conducting of its case, leading to unconscionable delay in the conclusion of the trial, militates against the principle of fair trial; in fact, tantamounting to justice being denied by such inexcusable delay. Furthermore, in context of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked to contend for a reversal of order of acquittal by the leamed trial Court, duly confirmed by the revisional Court passed in favour of respondents Nos, 3 to 7 by arguing as to the manner in which the leamed trial Court should have regulated its proceedings, when no patent illegality in that respect stands established.
4. Pursuant to the above discussion, therefore, the present writ petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed in limine.