' Through this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The petitioners seek quashment of the proceedings pending before the A.C./Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kehror Pacca under section 447 and 380, P.P.C. In pursuange to the impugned order dated 2-4-1994 passed by Mr. Muhammad Aslam Chaudhary, Additional Sessions Judge, Lodhran.
2. Brief facts are that Sit. Ijaz Ahmad, respondent No,2 complainant filed a private complaint before Assistant Commissioner Kehror Pacca alleging that he and his mother are owners and have been living in house No,146, Ward No,9/12, Kehror Pacca. After the death of his father, he along with his other family members shifted to Kasur temporarily. On the night between 17/18-6-1991 accused- petitioners trespassed and forcibly occupied his house. They took away precious household articles therefrom. The matter was reported to the police and the case was registered under section 447/380, P.P.C. But subsequently police discharged the accused persons which necessitated the filing of the private complaint.
3. Preliminary statement of the complainant and other cursory evidence was recorded. The trial Court vide order dated 4-8-1992, summoned the accused persons to face trial under section 448/451/380, P.P.C. Subsequently the accused persons moved an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Before the Assistant Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kehror Pacca for their acquittal which was accepted vide order dated 3-11-1992. Said order was assailed by the complainant by filing a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lodhran, which was opposed by the accused-petitioners. Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order held that there was no reasonable ground to believe that the complaint case was false and there was no occasion to acquit the accused persons without recording of the evidence. He set aside the order of acquittal of the accused and remanded the case to the trial Court directing the parties to appear before it on 11-4-1994. Hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the jurisdiction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to entertain the revision petition against the order of acquittal passed in the private complaint of the respondent. In this behalf learned counsel has relied upon the provisions of section 417, Cr.P.C. And Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad 1993 PCLLJ 2053.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant has defended the impugned order by submitting that the accused are implicated with the commission of the offence and as such they are liable to be tried.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the available record. It has been observed in the above-referred judgment that the appellant in the said case instead of filing a petition for special leave to appeal as provided under section 417(2), Cr.P.C. Filed a revision petition against the acquittal of the respondents before the learned Sessions Judge, Vehari, who dismissed the revision petition being incompetent. The appellant thereafter filed a petition for special leave to appeal before the High Court and the same after having been entertained was dismissed on merits.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant has relied upon Mst. Tasleem v. Abdul Rashid Bacha PLD 1989 Peshawar 28 to contend that the revision petition was competent before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. But the said judgment relates to dismissal of complaint and the comparison was made of the provisions of sections 202, 203 and 249-A, Cr.P.C. It was observed that "Consequences flowing from a mere dismissal of the complaint and acquittal of the accused are not only different but significant in their import. In the former case the scope for bringing the accused to book remains open whereas in the latter case the accused is finally and irrevocably subject to appeal, if any, absolved of the charges levelled against him."
' This judgment is clearly distinguishable as the question of competency of the revision petition was not considered therein.
8. Perusal of the provisions of subsection (2) of section 417, Cr.P.C. Clearly indicates that against the order of acquittal of accused the remedy open to the complainant is by way of a petition for leave to appeal before this Court and as such the revision petition before the Sessions Court is not competent. The respondent has not been able to shoW any reported judgment regarding the competency of the Sessions Judge to deal with the revision arising out of the order of acquittal of the accused from a complaint case. This being so, learned Additional Sessions Judge was not at all competent to entertain the revision petition filed against the acquittal of the petitioners. The complainant thus approached the wrong forum against the order of acquittal of the accused and as such the impugned order is without jurisdiction. In this view of the matter I am left with no alternative. But to quash the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 2-4-1994. The petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed.