' The facts relevant to dispose of this Writ Petition No,2383 of 1996 are that the petitioner Liaqat Ali was accused of an offence under section 435, P.P.C., in case F.I.R. No,162 of 1992 Police Station Mangtanwala District, Sheikhupura. He was sent up to face trial in the Court of learned Area Magistrate. During the course of proceedings an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C., was moved which was accepted and the petitioner was acquitted by the learned Magistrate on 30-7- 1995. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal Saleem Shehzad who was complainant in this case filed a criminal revision in the Court of learned Sessions Judge Nankana Sahib which was heard by Ch. Sarfraz Ahmad Tarar, learned Additional Sessions Judge. Th.? Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order, -dated 9-1-1996 accepted the revision petition and remanded the case with the direction to the parties to appear before the learned lower Court on 22-1-1996. Against the said order of remand the instant writ petition has been moved on the ground that any order of acquittal under section 249-A, Cr.P.C., is acquittal for all intents and purposes and against such order of acquittal an appeal has been provided under section 417(2-A), Cr.P.C. Originally under section 417, Cr.P.C., an appeal could be preferred only by the State but subsequently by virtue of Act XX of 1994 which came into force on 14-11-1994 subsection (2-A) was added to section 417, Cr.P.C., as a result of which any person aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court, may file an appeal within thirty days, against such an order. The complainant if he was aggrieved by the order of acquittal, proper course for him was to file appeal under section 417(2- A), Cr.P.C. Revision under section 439 or 439-A, Cr.P.C., would not be available to the respondent because the same contains embargo by virtue of subsection (5) to section 439, Cr.P.C., that where under Cr.P.C., an 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. Obviously, section 417(2-A), Cr.P.C., is wide enough to cover the complainant who is aggrieved party and he could have filed the appeal. Since the same has not been done, a revision petition by him was not competent. The plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not without force.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent failed to put up appearance in spite of repeated adjournments. As per office report P.C. (A.D.) had been issued to him the presumption is that same must have been received by him. There is nobody to controvert or refute the contentions raised by the learned counsel. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State who obviously is proper party in the proceedings concedes that revision petition was not available and the impugned order has been passed without lawful authority. As a result of the same this petition is allowed and the order, dated 9-1-1996 is set aside. There will be no order as to costs.