1. By this criminal revision application, the applicants Muhammad Nawaz and Daso Khan have sought the following relief:---- "Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the abovementioned judgment of acquittal, the undersigned advocate most humbly and respectfully files the present Revision Application with a prayer that this Honourable Court may be pleased to call for the record and proceedings of the Sessions Case No.312 of 1999, re: State v. Muhammad Ishaq Chandio under section 9(2), N.S.O. 1995 Ordinance, from the court of learned Special Judge Narcotics, Dadu and after perusing the same and hearing the parties, be further pleased to allow the present, Revision Application, by setting aside the impugned judgment."
2. The applicants have also sought the quashment of F.I.R. Registered against them.
3. I have heard Mr. Abdul Rasool Abbasi learned counsel for the applicants/accused and Mr. A.I Azhar Tunio learned Assistant Advocate General on behalf of the State. The latter concedes to the prayer of the applicants/accused.
4. The perusal of the material placed on the record shows that the applicant Muhammad Nawaz is serving as Excise Police Inspector, Mehar Circle and Daso Khan as Excise Police Head Constable.
5. According to applicants on 8-10-1999 at about 4-30 p.m. While patrolling they apprehended one Muhammad Ishaque and recovered 200 grams of cannabis resin (charas)`and one T.T. Pistol and six live bullets from his possession. The F.I.R. Under section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was lodged and after usual investigation the said accused Muhammad Ishaque was sent up to stand trial. The learned Special Judge acquitted the accused by impugned judgment dated 20- 3-2000 and ordered the registration of F.I.R. Against the applicants.
6. It will be pertinent to reproduce the hereinunder section 439(2) and (5)(4-a), Cr.P.C. For the sake of convenience: "S. 439. High Court's rowers of revision---(1) .....
(2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence.
(3) ..................
(4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court---
(a) to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction: or
(b) .................
(5) When under this Code 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.
7. (6)------------"
8. The plain reading of the above provisions shows that the revision against the acquittal is not maintainable. No appeal has been filed against the acquittal as contemplated under section 417, Cr.P.C. Moreover, only public prosecutor defined under section 4(t), Cr.P.C. Is competent to file the appeal. The applicants are not public prosecutors. Mr. Fazal Muhammad Khokhar Advocate has been appointed by the Federal Government to conduct the prosecution and appeal. In this context notification issued by the Federal Government is reproduced herein below in extenso:-- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN NARCOTICS CONTROL DIVISION ANTI-NARCOTICS FORCE POLICE STATION No.4(35)ANF/PS/SUK/98:597, Sukkur, 24th December, 1998.
9. OFFICE ORDER Mr. Fazal Muhammad Khokhar, Advocate, E-188/89, Naun Goth, Sukkur has been appointed as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the Anti---Narcotics Force cases/proceedings before the Special Courts of Sukkur and Larkana Division and Appellate Courts on behalf of Anti-Narcotics Force/Federal Government under section 50(1) of the CNS Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997) vide Notification No. 15 (1178)ANF/LAW/98, dated 25th November, 1998.
10. (QAMAR SADDIQUE RAJA), ASSISTANT DIRECTOR.
11. Distribution.
(1) The Assistant Registrar, High Court of Sindh Bench at Sukkur for kind information.
12. (2). The Assistant Registrar, High Court of Sindh Bench at Larkana for kind information.
(3) Special Court/Sessions Judge, Sukkur, Khairpur Nawabshah, Naushahro Feroze, Ghotki, Shikarpur, Jacobabad and Larkana for kind information.
13. (Qamar Saddique Raja), Assistant Director.
14. The applicants have also failed to nominate the accused Muhammad Ishaque Chandio as respondent in the present application.
15. The contention of the learned counsel for the, applicants that the F.I.R. Registered against the applicants may be quashed is misconceived.
16. The case is under investigation and not pending before any Court. The High Court, under its inherent powers, may quash the judicial proceedings, if, it was of the view that the proceedings pending in the Court amount to an abuse of the process of Court. In the case in hand no proceedings are pending in the Court. Consequently the High Court in its revisional or inherent jurisdiction is not competent to quash the F. I. R. In this context I am fortified by the decision of apex Court in. The case of Ahmed Saeed v. The State and another reported in 1996 SCM R 186.
17. The upshot of the above discussion is that the present revision is not maintainable in law.
18. Resultantly it merits no consideration and stands dismissed alongwith listed application.