1. ' Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as the respondents.
2. ' At the very outset, it may be observed here that the order passed under section 249-A, Cr.P.C.
3. Cannot be challenged in appeal as the Appellate Court would not be in a position to convert the findings of acquittal into conviction because normally these orders are passed without recording the full evidence of the prosecution. Reliance can be placed on a case of Muhammad Yasin v.
4. Muhammad Hanif and others 1997 PCr.LJ 1626.
5. ' Moreover, perusal of the impugned order reveals that statement of witnesses recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. Did not support the contents of the F.I.R. Inasmuch as the witnesses disclosed that the incident took place four months prior to registration of F.I.R. Furthermore, the complaint itself showed that the dispute arose over the outstanding amount and recovery of money which is purely question of civil nature and the complainant just to create harassment for the respondents lodged the said F.I.R. Contents of which as stated above, are not corroborated by the 'statement of any of the witnesses recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C.
6. ' Accordingly, this Criminal Acquittal Appeal No,20 of 2004, in my considered view, merits dismissal being not maintainable as well as without merit.
7. ' By my short order, dated 24-5-2004 I had dismissed this criminal acquittal appeal and these are the reasons for the same.
8. ' Cr. Acq. Appeal No,20 of 2004 stands disposed of.