1. ' This Criminal Acquittal Appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 16-1-1992 of learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (South) whereby the respondents were acquitted.
2. ' The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14-6-1988 at about 14-15 hours five persons, duly armed with revolvers and pistols, etc. Had entered in the show-room known as "Sherwani Motors" and robbed of the cash available there and also carried off the money of the persons, who were present there. The details of the robbed property are given in the F.I.R. On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the trial Court.
3. ' Charge under section 17(3), Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was framed.
4. ' At trial, the prosecution examined Sadaqat Nabi Khan P.Ws., Hidayat, Muhammad Saleem, A.S.-I.
5. Mazhar Hussain, A.S.-I. Muhammad Iqbal Niazi, A.C.M., C.I.A. Shahzar Shamoon, S.-I. Fayyaz Ahmed, S.-I. Ghulam Sarwar and Chaudhry Muhammad Latif, D.S.P.
6. ' The respondents in their statements, under section 342, Cr.P.C. Have denied the prosecution's allegations and claimed to be innocent. Both the respondents examined themselves on oath.
7. Respondent Qurban also examined Rafiq Ahmed, Azizullah and Najmuddin as defence witnesses.
8. ' On assessm ent of the evidence brought on record, learned Trial Judge acquitted the respondents.
9. ' Both the learned counsel for the respondents, have raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the appeal. They contend that the appeal had been filed by an Assistant Advocate-General and he was not competent to do so. In support of this contention, they cited, State through Advocate-General Sindh v. Hand Ahmed and others 1994 SCM R 749. Dictum laid down in above case supports the plea of the respondents. It was held in this case that appeal against acquittal filed by the Assistant Advocate-General on behalf of the State was not competent as Additional Advocate-General had not delegated his authority nor he could do so in view of the maxim delegate's non protest delegate. Learned defense counsel also argued that the appeal, if any, under section 24 of the Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood)
10. Ordinance, 1979 and Article 203-DD of the Constitution, could be filed only before the Federal Shariat Court.
11. ' They have also cited the case of Muhammad Hussain v. Muhammad Ramzan and another PLD 1982 FSC 11 wherein, it was held that expression "an appeal includes appeal against conviction as well as an appeal against acquittal". Learned Assistant Advocate-General concedes that the memo. Of appeal was signed by the Assistant Advocate-General, Sindh and that proper forum for its presentation was Federal Shariat Court.
12. ' Under the circumstances, we uphold the aforesaid preliminary objections and dismiss the appeal.