JUDGMENT S.M. ZUBAIR, J. The State has filed this appeal under section 417 Cr. P.C. Against the judgment of the learned Magistrate, T.T. Singh dated 29.6.1989 whereby he acquitted the respondent from the charges under sections 448/380 PPC.
2. The brief facts necessary for the just decision of this appeal are that on the report of Muhammad Iqbal, PW, the HR under above mentioned sections was registered at Police Station, Sadar, T.T. Singh on 24.9.1988 with respect to the occurrence which took place two months ago. According to FIR the complainant was in possession of Government Ihata and when he was away from his house, the respondent/accused took forcible its possession and stole 22 logs of wood. After due investigation, the challan was submitted in the Court.
3. Learned Law Officer appearing in support of this appeal submitted that the learned Magistrate neither discussed the prosecution evidence nor the defence evidence and passed the order after recording the name of the witnesses without formulating points for determination and this judgment . Is in contravention of section 367 Cr.P.C, hence it may be set-aside.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has not seriously disputed this legal position and submitted that no doubt, the judgment is open to serious objection and as it does not comply with the requirements of section 367 Cr.P.C but submitted that on merits no case is made out against the respondent as the matter was reported to the police after, two. Months of the occurrence and delay per-se in lodging the FIR is sufficient to make the prosecution version doubtful. The occurrence took place in the year 1988 and the respondent had the ordeal of protected trial, hence in this view of the matter, no useful purpose would be served by remanding the case back for fresh decision even after setting aside the order under appeal. Placed reliance on PLD 1964 S.C. 795.
5. I have carefully gone through the record with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
Admittedly the impugned order does not fulfill the requirements of section 367 Cr.P.C, as the learned Magistrate has failed to formulate the points for determination and has also failed to appreciate the evidence as required by law, hence this order is set-aside. Now I have to examine whether it is fit case for remanding to the trial Court for fresh trial when the order was passed in the year 1989 after the lapse of 5 years after going through the prosecution evidence and keeping in view the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and the times spent in the litigation. I feel, it is not desirable that the case be remanded to the trial Court for fresh decision.