' Appellant Ghulam Sadiq through instant appeal has challenged the judgment and order, dated 26-2-2004 handed down by learned Civil Judge-VIII/Judicial Magistrate, D.I. Khan whereby Muhammad Arif accused-respondent involved in case F.I.R. No,699, dated 24-12-1992 registered under section 506, P.P.C. At Police Station Cantt. D.I. Khan was acquitted of the charge by invoking the provisions of section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898).
2. The prosecution story according to the F.I.R. (Exh.P.A.) is that on the day of occurrence i,e, 24-12- 1992 at 20-45 hours, Ghulam Sadiq complainant was returning home and when he reached the house of Abdul Qayyum, he noticed Muhammad Arif accused-respondent standing near the gate of house of Abdul Qayyum. On seeing the accused-respondent, an altercation ensued between the complainant and accused-respondent. The latter took out a pistol from the Dub of his Shalwar and aimed at the complainant. The complainant acted sharply, snatched the pistol from accused- respondent and handed over the same to police. Malik Sultan and Karim Bakhsh, co-villagers of the complainant were stated to have witness the occurrence. The motive for the offence was stated to be that Muhammad Arif accused-respondent had illicit relations with wife of Abdul Qayyum and he was forbidden by the complainant to refrain from indulging in such activities, on account of which, the accused-respondent was nourishing grudge against the complainant.
3. Challan of the case was put in Court in 25-7-1993. The accused was charged under section 506, P.P.C. For criminal intimidation. Two witnesses were produced by the prosecution namely Sultan Mehmood, Inspector, C.I.A. And Muhammad Irshad Khan, S.H.O. Three witnesses submitted affidavits that no such incident had taken place and case F.I.R. No,699 was lodged falsely.
Resultantly, learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate vide his order, dated 26-2-2004 acquitted the accused under section 24.9-A, Cr.P.C. Observing:- "The present case F.I.R. No,699 of the same day seems concocted one. After submission of the affidavits by the eyewitnesses that the version of the complainant Ghulam Sadiq is not true, I see no chances of the conviction of the present accused Muhammad Arif in this case F.I.R. No,699. This case is pending for trial from last 12 years without any fruitful progress and further trial of this case would be a futile exercise. Therefore, in view of the aforegoing submissions I hereby accept the application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Of the accused Muhammad Arif and he is acquitted from the charge levelled against him."
4. Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant contended with vehemence that the learned trial Judge has wrongly applied the provisions of section 249-A, Cr.P.C. And proceeded on wrong premises to hold that charge was groundless or there was no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence and further the trial of the case would be an exercise in futility. He further contended that the P.Ws. Who tendered affidavits had not come forward to verify - the same and that the impugned order of the trial Court being perverse, cannot be allowed to remain intact and the case needs to be remanded for retrial.
5. Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Shows that trial Magistrate is given powers of acquitting an accused person at any stage of the case, if after hearing the prosecutor and the accused and for the reasons to be recorded, he considers that charge is groundless or there is no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence. The use of word "at any stage" indicates the intention of the Legislature that such order can be passed even before recording of evidence, if the facts of the case are such that the Court is satisfied that no useful purpose would be served by prosecuting further in the matter.
6. Having considered the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant in the light of available record, I am of the view that the conclusion drawn by the trial Judge is neither arbitrary, fanciful nor artificial in nature. The settled 1 aw in an appeal against acquittal is that the Appellate Court is slow in disturbing the finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness.
In the case Muhammad Akram and others v. The State 1995 SCM R 1359 it was ruled by a Full Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court that acquittal judgment is not to be interfered with lightly and due consideration and weight is to be attached to the observations made in the acquittal judgment and that this rule is to be followed more strictly if the acquittal judgment is recorded by the trial Court which has the opportunity of examining the witness and observing their demeanour in the Court. The view that approach for dealing with the appeal against the conviction would be different and should be distinguished from the appeal against acquittal because of presumption of double innocence of the accused is attached to the order of acquittal has been reiterated in the case of Munawar Shah v. Liaqat Hussain and others 2002 SCM R 713.
7. F.I.R. No,699 having been registered in the year 1992 at the behest of Ghulam Sadiq complainant, order of acquittal was passed in 2004 and respondent Muhammad Arif having suffered the agonies of protracted trial for twelve years, it would not be proper at this stage to remand the case for retrial.
8. For what has been discussed above, I find that well-reasoned impugned order of acquittal does not suffer from any legal infirmity or arbitrariness so as to render the impugned decision open to any exception.
9. Resultantly, the appeal being meritless, is dismissed in limine.