' Brief facts of the case are; criminal case under sections 440/342, 148/149 and 338-H (ii), P.P.C. Was registered against the petitioners at the instance of respondent No, 4 at Police Station Noshera vide F.I.R. Dated 20-10-1994. After investigation the challan was presented in Court and trial was held. As many as 7 prosecution witnesses were examined by the trial Court and 4 were given up, whereafter only statements of police officials were to be recorded. It was at that stage that the petitioners moved an application before the learned trial Court under section 249-A, Cr. P.C. For their acquittal.
This application was accepted by the learned trial Court on 1-4-1997 and the petitioners were acquitted.
2. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No,4 filed an appeal before learned Sessions Judge Khushab which was accepted and after setting aside the order dated 1-4-1997, the case was remanded to the trial Court for further proceedings. Hence this writ petition.
3. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this writ petition, is that no appeal was competent by the Complainant-Respondent No, 4 before learned Sessions Judge. It is submitted that by virtue of amendment of section 417, Cr.P.C. By Act 20 of 1994 subsection (2-A) was added and right of appeal was conferred upon the complainant against the order of acquittal passed by any Court but with the rider that such appeal could only be filed before the High Court. The precise submission is that the learned Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of respondent No, 4 and decide the same on merits.
4. This is a misconceived writ petition and merits rejection.
It is not denied that the learned Sessions Judge is vested with powers under section 439, Cr. P.C. To interfere in the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court. The mere fact that the matter before him had been styled as an appeal would not make any difference. In the circumstances of the case, learned Sessions Judge would be deemed to have exercised revisional powers under section 439 of Cr. P.C. And while exercising these powers had competently remanded the case to the trial Court for further proceedings, after setting aside the order of acquittal.
' No illegality was committed by the learned Sessions Judge, so as to warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.