' This is a petition under section 417(2), Cr.P.C. For special leave to appeal against the order, dated 21-7-1996 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kulachi, acquitting Saifu-ur-Rehman and six others named in the heading of appeal as respondents from the charges under section 447/290, P.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Abdullah Jan had filed a complaint under section 447/290, P.P.C. Against the accused/respondents in the Court of learned S.D.M., Kulachi to the effect that accused/respondents had trespassed in the street owned and possessed by him by opening the doors of their houses in the street.
3. After observing all the required formalities, evidence on behalf of the complainant recorded, which consisted of four witnesses including the complainant.
4. The learned trial Court after the close of the complainant's evidence in his presence heard the arguments of the respondent's counsel on the application made by him under section 249-A, Cr.P.C.
5. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate acquitted the accused/ respondents under section 249- A-, Cr.P.C. By holding that not a single witness produced by the complainant has supported his version beyond any shadow of doubt and, therefore, there is no probability of conviction of the accused/respondents.
6. On going through the evidence, I find that the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence in support of his claim that the street in dispute is owned and possessed by him, rather all the wintesses produced by the complainant have stated that the street was also being used by the accused/respondents.
7. As the arguments on application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Were addressed by the counsel of the respondents in presence of the complainant, therefore, it could be safely gathered from the circumstances that complainant was in the knowledge of the application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. And the arguments addressed thereon.
8. Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Empowers Magistrate to acquit accused at any stage of proceeding after hearing the Prosecutor/complainant and accused and for reasons to be recorded, if he considers charge to be groundless or there being no probability of accused's conviction for any offence.
9. There is thus hardly any substance in this application for leave to appeal, which is accordingly dismissed in limine.