1. ' By this revision, the applicant has challenged the impugned judgment, dated 29-9-1996 passed by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby the respondents/accused Ghulam Muhammad and others have been acquitted in Sessions Case No,529 of 1994 under sections 436, 148, 149, 504, 342 and 34, P.P.C.
2. ' Briefly stated the facts are that the applicant had lodged F.I.R. On 10-8-1993 at 7-30 a.m. Against the respondents/accused alleging therein that the respondent Ghulam Muhammad duly armed with revolver alongwith four others persons set fire on his shop on 10-8-1993 at 2-15 a.m.
3. ' The respondents/accused were tried by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad for the charges under sections 436, 148, 149, 504, 342 and 34, P.P.C. But all the accused have been acquitted by the impugned judgment.
4. ' I have heard Mr. Ashiq Hussain Leghari, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Agha Khuda Bux for the State. I have also gone through the impugned judgment and the case file.
5. ' The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the learned Trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the case as section 436, P.P.C. Was triable by the Court of Special Judge, Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act.
6. ' The other contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the learned Trial Court has not considered the prosecution evidence on the reasons and has illegally acquitted the respondents/accused.
7. ' On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has argued that there being specific provision of acquittal appeal under section 417(2-A), Cr.P.C., revision filed by the applicant against acquittal of the respondents is not maintainable. The learned counsel further submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal is based on sound reasons which does not merit to be set aside.
8. ' I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant as well as State Counsel.
9. ' I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the State that the applicant having right of appeal against acquittal available to him under section 417(2-A), Cr.P.C. Has filed the present revision. Section 439(5), Cr.P.C. Also bars such revision, which provides that "where under this Code, appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceedings by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed".
10. ' In the case of Abdul Majeed and others v. Messrs H. Ghulam Muhammad & Brothers Ltd. And others reported in 1995 PCr.LJ 1369, this Court has held that where remedy by way of appeal is available, but the same is not utilized, no revision under section 439, Cr.P.C. Can be filed.
11. ' In 1996 PCr.LJ 1475 similar view was taken by Peshawar High Court and such revision against acquittal was dismissed as not maintainable.
12. In view of the above legal position and the case-law cited above I am of the view that the revision filed by the applicant is not maintainable.
13. ' The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that section 436, P.P.C. Was triable by the Special Court, constituted under the Act No,XV of 1975 and not by the trial Court has also no force.
14. As per schedule of the said Act, section 436, P.P.C. Will be triable by the Special Court, Suppression of Terrorist Activities when, if an explosive substance, Mineral Oil or only product of Mineral Oil is used for the commission of such offence.
15. There appear no such allegation in the prosecution case so as to attract the jurisdiction of the Special Court. I, therefore, hold that there is no error of jurisdiction as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned trial Court had the jurisdiction to try the case.
16. ' The learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents/accused after considering the entire evidence on the record and there appears no justification otherwise to interfere with the impugned judgment. The impugned judgment does not appear to be illegal or perverse.
17. ' In the recent decision of Muhammad Iqbal and another v. Sanaullah and 7 others, reported in PLD 1997 SC page 569, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that Court would not interfere with the acquittal because on reappraisal of the evidence it comes to the conclusion different from that of the Court acquitting the accused.
18. ' For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in the revision application which is dismissed in limine.