' The complainant feeling aggrieved by the order passed by Nawab Aftab Ahmed Khan, Magistrate Section 30, Multan, dated 31-3-1996, whereby the respondents were acquitted in Case F.I.R. No,127 of 1991 registered under section 381/406/420/467/468/471/411, P.P.C. At Police Station Chehalyak has preferred this appeal against acquittal.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that Muhammad Saleem complainant moved application Exh.P.C. Stating therein that he had established a workshop by the name of Saleem Autos and he had purchased Rickshaw 7684-FDA on 24-1-1984, Rickshaw 9249-FDA was purchased on 12-2-1982 while Rickshaw 8346-LEG was purchased by him on 24-5-1981 from different people under open transfer letters and that he was plying these Rickshaws through hired drivers. On 6-4-1990 he rented out his workshop and all his tools etc. Alongwith the three Rickshaws to Muhammad Ilyas his apprentice on the understanding that he would be paid Rs,5,500 as the rental/lease money.
Muhammad Saleem further states that till December, 1990 the said amount was paid regularly every month and then later on refused to pay the complainant. Apprehending misappropriation he reported the matter through this application Exh.P.C. On 30-3-1991 and on basis of this, case F.I.R.
No,127 was registered on 4-4-1991.
3. Muhammad Ilyas accused was arrested on 9-11-1991 while Abdul Waheed, Mansoor Ayyaz and Muhammad Azam were also arrested in this case. After completion of the investigation all of them were challaned and sent up to Court on 13-12-1992 and total 15 witnesses were recorded in the calendar of witnesses. 5 P.Ws., namely Riaz Ahmed, Nazir Ahmed, Muhammad Bilal, Muhammad Saleem and Khalid Parvez Butt were examined in this case. Out of these witnesses Nazir Ahmed and Khalid Pervaiz Butt have not supported the prosecution case. It is stated that Ilyas through forged and fabricated documents got transferred in his name all the three rickshaws courtesy the Excise and Taxation Department and it is also stated that Abdul Waheed, Mansoor Ayyaz and Muhammad Azam co-accused had joined hands with Ilyas accused to fabricate these false documents.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has urged that the prosecution evidence was not exhausted by the learned Trial Court and that the coercive measures were not used in summoning the prosecution evidence and that he had moved an application before the learned Trial Court to this context on 26-10-1995. It is also urged that the conduct of the accused has been such that on numerous dates the accused have deliberately avoided appearance in Court and sought adjournments unnecessarily.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused/respondents have argued that no rickshaw has been recovered from the possession of the respondents/accused and that no document has been taken into possession by the Police in course of investigation from the office of the Excise and Taxation Officer to send the same for a comparison test regarding thumb-impression or handwriting nor any samples of handwriting and thumb-impressions of the accused have been obtained. That the complainant has not produced any document on record to establish his ownership of those rickshaws purchased by him on various dates front various persons and that the evidence already recorded does not connect beyond doubt the accused with the commission of the offence. That the remaining evidence as listed in the calendar of witnesses even tf examined would not enhance and prove the case of the complainant against the accused and that the case has been lingering over a period of more than four years and the prosecution had ample opportunity to produce the evidence against the respondents but they had not utilised the opportunity. The remaining evidence against the respondents even if summoned through coercive measures as desired by the complainant would not have put any life in the case of the complainant as the essential evidence to bring home the guilt against the accused was never taken into possession by any Investigation Officer. It has men stated that this case was though investigated by many different Police Officers of different ranks and yet none of them acted in a sensible legal manner to collect the relevant cogent evidence against the respondents/accused.
The complainant has failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents and furthermore, it is not a case which ought to be remanded for rehearing when already the last trial has spread over a period of more than four years and that the remaining prosecution evidence is of such nature that it would not enhance the case of the complainant and would be just an exercise in futility and a burden on the public exchequer. The appeal being devoid of force, is dismissed on merits.