' On 22-11-1996, Sardar Muhammad Ismail, S.H.O., Taimoria Police Station, Karachi, lodged F.I.R.
No,280 of 1996 about an offence under section 13-D, Arms Ordinance, allegedly committed by the present respondent No,2. The S.H.O. Himself conducted the investigation and submitted charge- sheet, on 28-11-1996, before VI-Judicial Magistrate, Karachi Central.
2. On 3-12-1996, Muhammad Ashraf, S.H.O.,- North Nazimabad Police Statics`, filed a report before the trial Court, recommending release of the accused/respondent No,2, under section 169, Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate having charge of the trial Court rejected the prayer holding that according to law, guilt or innocence can only be determined after the evidence. Thereafter, the accused/respondent No,2, filed an application for acquittal under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. The Magistrate incharge then allowed it and acquitted the accused/respondent No,2 under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Against this acquittal, the informant/Investigating Officer filed the present appeal.
3. In these circumstances, the first question was whether the appellant has a right to file this appeal and it was put to Mr. Shaukat Zubedi, learned counsel f6r the appellant. He submitted that the appellant is legally authorized to file this appeal under section 417(2-A), Cr.P.C. As he was the informant as well as the Investigating Officer.
4. Subsection (2-A) was inserted in section 417, Cr.P.C. By Code of Criminal Procedure (Second Amendment) Act, 1994 (Act XX of 1994). In the Bill introduced in the National Assembly for the purpose, the amendment was proposed, through clause 4 of the Bill, in the following form:-- "4. Amendment of section 417, Act V of 1898--- In the Criminal Code, in section 417, after subsection (2), the following new subsection shall be inserted namely:-- (2-A) An informant or a Wali may file an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court.
Explanation. In this section, the expression ' informant' shall mean the person giving information of an offence under section 154."
5. The Standing Committee of the National Assembly on Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, examined the Bill under rule 182 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the National Assembly, 1992, and did not approve the amendment as introduced by the Minister for Law and Justice. The Committee decided that this right of appeal be given to a person who has suffered a loss or injury as a result of the offence. The Committee, therefore, recommended that in clause (4) relating to section 417, for subsection (2-A) the following be substituted:-- "(2-A) A person aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by any Court, other than a High Court, may within thirty days, file an appeal against such order."
6. This provision, as recommended by the Standing Committee, was passed by the Parliament in the form of Act XX of 1994, and culminated in the form of the present law on the subject.
7. Since the Law-makers did not approve to give right of appeal to a person merely on the basis of his capacity as informant, a complainant cannot claim this right merely on the ground that he lodged the F.I.R.
8. The other capacity of the appellant in the present case, on the basis whereof he claims right to file this appeal, is that of the Investigating Officer. This, too, does not make him "a person aggrieved of the order of acquittal", because it is his offidial function on behalf of the State, and does not admit of his personal interest.
9. The appellant was not, therefore, a person aggrieved of the order of acquittal within the meanings of section 417(2-A), Cr.P.C. He was not legally authorized to file this appeal. The appeal was incompetent but since the question of validity of the order has been brought to the knowledge of the High Court, it is converted into revision under section 439, Cr.P.C.
10. Mr. Zubedi contended that the Magistrate incharge of the trial Court first rejected the prayer for release of the accused/respondent No,2, under section 169, Cr.P.C. But after some time, relying upon the same report under section 169, Cr.P.C. Acquitted him under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Mr. Arshad Lodhi, A.A.-G., supported the impugned order and submitted that the accused/respondent No,2 was rightly acquitted.
11. The order of acquittal shows that it has been based on the report under section 169, Cr.P.C. And the facts narrated therein, and on statements of witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. Just twenty- eight days before this order, the same Magistrate had rejected this report and had observed that the guilt of innocence of the accused could only be determined after evidence of witnesses. It is not clear from the impugned order as to what was the reason for the change of the view of the Magistrate.
12. The report under section 169, Cr.P.C. Was once rejected and it could not have been made basis of acquittal under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. The Magistrate was also not legally authorized to decide the case on the basis of statements of witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C.
13. The impugned order is absolutely baseless and cannot be maintained. It is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court for a decision on merits on the basis of evidence to be recorded by the Court. Revision stands disposed of accordingly. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.