1. ' This petition for quashment of to impugned orders, dated 9-4-1994 and 8-9-1997 of the learned Illaqa Qazi, Car Bagh, Swat and learned Zilla Qazi, Malakand Camp Court at Swat, has been filed by Muhammad Siraj Khan, petitioner whereby he has questioned the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Courts below in respect of accused respondents Nos.1 to 6 in case F.I.R. No,13, dated 30- 1-1990 under section 447/427/147/149, P.P.C.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner lodged a report against respondents Nos.1 to 6 for damaging various kinds of trees planted by the Watershed Department on his land known as "
3. (URDU TEXT)". The accuse respondents were put to trial in the Court of Illaqa Qazi, Khwaza Khela were acquitted of the charge vide judgment, dated 9-4-1997. The petitioner file a revision petition against their acquittal in the Court of Zilla Qazi, Malaka Camp Court, Swat, which was also dismissed by the learned Zilla Qazi vides judgment/order, dated 8-9-1997, hence the present petition for quashment of the impugned orders.
4. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court is not a judgment in the eyes of law for the reasons that no formal charge was framed against the accused-respondents in the case; that the statement of the complainant was recorded in absence of the accused-respondents and that while recording the order of acquittal, the learned trial Court did not advance any reasons for such acquittal. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner are, however, misconceived. The accused-respondents were formally charge-sheeted on 3-4-1994 as is evident from the order sheet of the same date.
5. Similarly, the statement of the complainant was recorded on 2-4-1996 and there is available on file an application of the accused-respondent Bacha Khan, wherein he requested for exemption from appearance in Court on 2-4-1996 and the said application was allowed by the learned trial Judge.
6. The order sheet, dated 2-4-1996 reveals that Bacha Khan and Jehangir Khan, accused- respondents, were marked present through their counsel, whereas the other accused-respondents were present in person in the Court on the said date. It is also evident from the file that the petitioner filed an application on 23-4-1997 under section 417, Cr.P.C. Before the District Magistrate, Swat which was dismissed on 11-6-1997 whereafter the petitioner filed revision petition before Zilla Qazi on 18-6-1997, hence the argument that the petitioner was having remedy of filing an appeal under "section 417, Cr.P.C. And, therefore, the learned revisional. Court should have returned the revision petition being not maintainable, is without any substance, rather the petitioner has concealed this fact from this Court. The learned trial Court has properly discussed the entire evidence available on record and has formed an opinion which cannot be said to have been based on no reasons.
7. ' In these circumstances, there is no good ground for interference in the impugned judgments/orders and the petition for quashment is liable to dismissal and I order accordingly.