RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.- The facts leading to the filing of this Petition for Special Leave to Appeal is that Mehdi Khan complainant had lodged a complaint against the respondents and another, Muhammad Riaz Patwari, who has since died, lor an offence under sections 420/468/400/471/467/109 PPC. The case came up for hearing before Special Judge, Anti- Corruption, Gujral, wherein the said Court on 2-6-1992, held that the only public servant Muhammad Riaz Patwari was dead therefore the others could not be tried by him. Thereafter complainant filed a complaint before Assistant Commissioner, Kharian, who issued process to the respondents and framed charge on 4 I-1993. Thereafter on the application of the respondents under sections 249-A Cr.P.C., he vide his judgment dated 1I-5- 1993. Acquitted them. In the present proceedings petitioner challenges the said order of acquittal.
It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court had erred in law by acquitting the respondents before commencement of trial. Submitted that the Court should have afforded an opportunity to the complainant to produce his evidence and thereafter could pass any order in accordance with law. In these circumstances according to learned counsel complainant was condemned unheard.
2. I have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the i.e. The complainant had produced preliminary evidence and thereafter process was issued to the respondents. The crucial point for determination was that the allegations against (he respondents were that they inclusion with Muhammad Riaz Patwari, since dead, had forged the revenue record, the respondents were charged for abetting the offence. There is no evidence available on the i.e which could establish the commission of abetment. As for Muhammad Riaz Patwari (deceased) is concerned, he was In charge of the record which has since been forged. It was an official record and he was custodian of it. Respondents cannot be held responsible for the forgery committed in the official record. As for the question of abetment is concerned the complainant has not led any evidence to establish how and where abetment took place. After going through the judgment impugned, I find cogent reasons have been given to which no exception can be taken. Resultantly, petition fails which is dismissed.