1. AMIR-UL-MULK MENGAL, J.---This appeal has been filed under section 417, Cr.P.C. By the Deputy Director (F.I.A.) against the order dated 31-10-1994 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Quetta whereby he was pleased to acquit the accused persons.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on receipt of certain information Assistant Director F.I.A. Conducted a raid on 21-10-1991 and thereafter recorded F.I.R. No.4 of 1991 with Police Station F.I.A. (Crimes)
3. Quetta under section 420/467/468/471 /482/483 read with section 109, P.P.C. The case was investigated and after usual investigation challan was submitted under section 420/467/468/471/482/483 read with section 109, P.P.C.
4. Charge was read over to the accused persons on 18-12-1992 to which all the accused PLEADED NOT GUILTY and claimed trial. The prosecution led evidence and at the conclusion of trial learned Sessions Judge, Quetta in detailed order acquitted the accused persons.
5. Resultantly feeling aggrieved of the acquittal order this appeal has been preferred under section 417, Cr.P.C. In this Court.
6. At the very outset Mr. Ziaullah Sheikh counsel for the acquitted accused, strongly urged that the appeal is not maintainable as the same has not been competently filed. In order to support his objection learned counsel raised various legal questions as to maintainability of the present appeal. The gist of arguments as advanced may be summarised as under: --
(i) Under section 417, Cr.P.C. It is only Provincial Government which has been conferred a right to direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of acquittal. In the present case neither the Provincial Government has directed the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal against acquittal nor the appeal has been filed by Public Prosecutor, therefore,, the same is not maintainable.
(ii) An appeal can be filed only if such a right has been expressly conferred by law. The only section under Criminal Procedure Code regarding a right of appeal against an order of acquittal is section
417. This right has recently been expanded to any person aggrieved of an order of acquittal.
(iii) The Deputy Attorney-General as a Public Prosecutor could file an appeal against an order of acquittal only when the Federal Government had the right to file an appeal. The counsel further submitted that any of the special laws or other laws where the right of appeal -has been conferred upon the Federal Government it can direct Deputy Attorney-General to file an appeal against acquittal but the present appeal has been filed under section 417, Cr.P.C. Where no such right has been conferred upon the Federal Government, therefore, even if any direction had been made by the Federal Government, the same could not have been field under section 417, Cr.P.C.
7. Learned Advocate-General, Baluchistan invited our attention to the fact that it is only the Provincial Government or now a private person i.e. The complainant who have got right to file an appeal against an order of acquittal. In this respect learned Advocate-General referred to section 492, Cr.P.C. And submitted that it is again the Provincial Government who may appoint, generally, or in any case, or for any specified class of cases; in any local area, one, or more officers to be called Public Prosecutors. Learned Advocate-General also outlined the history of section 417, Cr.P.C. And argued that in case of Qadir Bakhsh v. The Crown PLD 1955 FC 79 a similar question arose when the Chief Court on an appeal filed by Advocate-General, Sindh entertained the appeal and set aside acquittal order converting it by conviction but the Federal Court held that since Advocate-General of Sindh has not been appointed under section 492, Cr.P.C. As Public Prosecutor, therefore, the appeal had not been competently filed.
8. On the contrary learned Deputy Attorney-General argued as under: --
(a) The Deputy Attorney-General has been appointed as Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State, therefore, he is competent to file an appeal against an order of acquittal particularly in cases investigated by any Federal Agency like F.I.A. It was secondly argued that .By Ordinance XXXIII of 1985 namely Central Law Officers (Amendment). Ordinance, 1970 (VII of 1970) was further amended in which section 4-A was inserted which empowered a Deputy Attorney-General to institute, file and conduct any proceeding, including appeal and revision, for and on behalf of the Federal Government before any Court or Tribunal, including a Special Court constituted under any law.
9. The counsel for the parties relied on several judgments while giving the history of the amendments made in section 417, Cr.P.C. According to the respondents' counsel first amendment in section 417, Cr.P.C. Was made in 1937 under which the word 'Local Government' was substituted by the word 'Provincial Government'. The second amendment came in 1972 where complainant was introduced and procedure was laid down how the complainant after special leave to appeal, granted by the High Court, can file an appeal from the order of acquittal. The time limitation for such appeal was fixed as 60 days, which was further amended to 30 days and lastly subsection (2) of section 417 was amended by adding section 2(A) where legislature allowed a person aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court to file an appeal within 30 days against order of acquittal.
10. The respondents' counsel referred to PLD 1955 Federal Court 79, PLD 1966 SC 971, PLD 1979 Pesh. 174 and 1993 PCr.LJ 2285. Similarly all the judgments cited by learned. Advocate-General are prior to the last amendment made in section 417. Those are very pertinent but in these judgments the new section 2(A) had obviously not been discussed and Deputy Attorney-General mostly relied on section 2(A).
11. The thrust of the arguments was that it is only the Public Prosecutor who is competent under section 417,- Cr.P.C. To present the appeal to the High Court if so directed by the Provincial Government. The Deputy Attorney --General referred to Central Law Officer (Amendment)
12. Ordinance, 1970 (VII of 1970) and contended- that by insertion of section 4(A) the Deputy Attorney- General has been declared as Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Federal Government to institute, file and conduct any proceedings before any Court or Tribunal including a Special Court constituted under any law. Thus, the Deputy Attorney-General is declared as Public Prosecutor.
13. However, the controversy still remains because the `question requiring determination is who can file an appeal under section 417, Cr.P.C. After addition of section 2-A in the said section.
14. From perusal of section 417 as (embodied after insertion of section 2-A) the right of appeal has been conferred against acquittal to 3 categories:
(1) 417(1), Cr.P.C. Empowers the Provincial Government to direct the Public Prosecutor .To present an appeal before the High Court from an original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court.
(2) Similarly 417(2), Cr.P.C. Describes the manner in which complainant is granted special leave by the High Court to appeal from the order of acquittal.
(3) 417 (2-A), Cr.P.C. Which has been recently introduced confers a right to a person aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court to file an appeal to the High Court.
15. It is thus clear that the authorities cited are not apt because section 2-A has been added to section 417, Cr.P.C. Very recently by Act XX of 1994, and the authorities cited are much prior to the said amendment.
16. From bare perusal of section 417, Cr.P.C. It appears that the right to file an appeal against the order of acquittal was originally limited only to the Provincial Government. This was described as extraordinary remedy of appeal against acquittal which received a statutory recognition for the first time in 1872 in the interest of public safety peace and order (AIR (sic) All 439). Its scope was very narrow and it was based on the principle that an acquitted person by competent Court should not undergo any further trial for the offence of which he has been acquitted, therefore, none else but only Provincial Government was conferred the right of appeal. However, with the passage of time a complainant was allowed to apply to the High Court for special leave to appeal from order of acquittal and he could file appeal only after satisfying the High Court that leave be granted to him. In case the High Court refused, no appeal from the order of acquittal was competent even to be filed by the Provincial Government, as envisaged in 417(4), Cr.P.C. By adding section 2-A to section 417, Cr.P.C. The narrow scope was further widened and now it was thought proper that not only the Provincial Government or a private complainant but any person aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by any Court may file an appeal against such order within 30 days.
17. The paramount point, therefore, is to interpret connotation "a person aggrieved".
18. We firstly venture to define the word 'person'. We can take benefit of section 11, P.P.C. Which defines a 'person' as follows: -- "The word 'person' includes any Company or Association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not."
19. Similarly in the General Clauses Act the 'person' is defined as under: -- Persons shall include the company or association or body of persons whether incorporated or not."
20. Likewise Chamber's 20th Century Dictionary defines inter alia 'person' as a human being (natural person), or a Corporation (artificial person) regarded as having rights and. Duties under the law.
21. The Concise Oxford Dictionary describes 'person' inter alia as "human being (natural) or body incorporate (artificial) with recognised rights and duties".
22. Similarly in Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edition) 'person' means 'In general usage a human being (i.e. Natural person), though by statute term may include a firm, labour organisations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers".
23. A person aggrieved has been defined as under:--- "A person aggrieved as contemplated by Federal Rules governing standing to object to alleged illegal search and seizure is one who is the victim of the search and seizure as distinguished from one who claims prejudice only through the use of evidence gathered at search directed against someone else.
24. From its further perusal it appears that in U.S.A. Foreign Governments otherwise eligible to sue in U.S. Courts are 'persons' entitled to bring treble damage suit for eligible ante-trust violations under ClintoM.Act.
25. From the commentary .On the word 'person' it appears that the Courts have held that where imprisonment is mandatory 'person' does not include Corporate Body because Corporate Body or Company is not indictable but it has been simultaneously held that the word 'person' is sufficiently wide to include the Government as representative of the whole community (1877) 1 Bom. 510 and
622. Another argument which is equally important would arise if the word 'person' includes the Government, that if in subsection (2-A) of section 417, Cr.P.C. The person aggrieved included the Government then subsection (1) of section 417, Cr.P.C. Would become redundant. It was argued that had that been the intention of Legislature then such amendment should have been made in subsection (1) of section 417, Cr.P.C. Or most appropriately instead of 'any person' the word 'Federal Government.' could be added alongwith Provincial Government. The answer can be found in the principle that it is duty of the Courts to interpret different sections in a Statute in order to harmonise various sections or subsection in a Statute. As such we cannot extend an interpretation which will not be harmonious, thus rendering subsection (1) as redundant to subsection (2-A) of Cr.P.C. It appears to us that when Shariat was declared as the governing law, the Government thought it proper to extend right of appeal to a person aggrieved against the order of acquittal. The word 'person aggrieved' has been intentionally used so as to include agencies of the Government. This appeal has been filed by the Deputy Director of F.I.A., therefore, we need go to the extent of interpreting whether the word aggrieved person includes Federal Government or not. The supple question posed before us would be whether the Deputy Director, F.I.A. Is a 'person aggrieved' or not.
26. Aggrieved person or aggrieved party has beer; ,, defined in Black s Law Dictionary as under: - "Aggrieved party.---One whose legal right is invaded b`- an act complained of, or whose pecuniary interest is directly affected by a decree or judgment. One whose right of property may be established or divested. The word 'aggrieved' refers to a substantial right , or the imposition upon a party of a burden of obligation."
27. On this touchstone we can unhesitatingly infer that Deputy Director, F.I.A. Is an aggrieved person because after when he deducted that the appellants with connivance of some Drug Inspectors have been indulging in illegal business of drugs of substandard and spurious drugs thereby causing injury to the general public for which the Deputy Director, F.I.A. Has a legal obligation to control There is no cavil that it is included in the duties of the Deputy Director, F.I.A, to collect information and to take legal action against such person who are indulged in anti-social activities like manufacturing spurious drugs and selling it in the market to the general public, therefore, a raid was conducted and investigation started. Hence when such persons have been acquitted of the charge by the trial Court naturally the Deputy Director, F.I.A. Would be aggrieved person as far as acquittal from such charge is concerned. We have already mentioned that this appeal has not been filed by the Federal Government but by Deputy Director F.I A. Who is a servant of the Federal Government.
28. Keeping in view the definitions mentioned hereinabove we have no hesitation but to hold that Deputy Director, F.I.A. Is a 'person aggrieved' within the meaning of subsection (2-A) of section 417, Cr.P.C. Therefore, the C appeal has been competently filed. The same is, therefore, maintainable and has to be decided on its own merits. The preliminary objection upon which arguments were heard and judgment reserved is accordingly decided. The matter now be fixed for hearing on merits for a date in office.