NIAZI Versus GHULAM DASTIGIR

Ghulam Dastigir respondent No. 1 had filed a complaint on 7th July., 1982, under section 323, P.P.C. against the petitioners herein in the Court of Assistant Commissioner/Magistrate 1st Class, Quetta. As the area, where the offence had taken place, was governed under the provisions of Ordinance II of 1968 the aforesaid Magistrate constituted a tribunal. The complainant neither appeared before the tribunal nor produced any evidence whereupon on the recommendations of the tribunal the aforesaid Magistrate by order, dated 10‑2‑1983 acquitted the petitioners herein and dismissed the complaint. However, on 4‑10‑1983, about eight months after the acquittal of the petitioners, the respondent No. 1 again filed a complaint against the petitioners under section 323/420/406, P.P.C. in the same Court wherein he alleged that on the previous occasion the petitioners had compounded the offence with him by payment of Rs.800 but two days thereafter they received back the amount and hence they were liable to be prosecuted. The second complaint was also dismissed by the learned Magistrate and the accused/petitioners were acquitted vide order, dated 22‑6‑1986. The respondent No. I herein challenged that order by way of a revision petition under section 435/439‑A, Cr.P.C. in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge 1, Quetta which was accepted vide order dated 2‑2‑1987. Hence the present petition under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C.

2. The respondent No. 1 remained absent in spite of service and I had heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.A.‑G. It is clear from the, order; dated 10‑2‑1983 of the learned Assistant Commissioner that he had acquitted the petitioners. The same is the order, dated 22‑6‑1986 on the second complaint filed by respondent No. 1 on 4‑ 10‑ 1983. It shall thus be seen that the petitioners were acquitted of the offence with which they were charged. The only alternative left with the respondent No. 1 was to file an appeal under section 417, Cr.P.C. by seeking permission of the High Court to file the same as it was a private complaint. No revision was competent against the order of acquittal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge‑I has erred in law in entertaining the revision and setting aside the impugned order of acquittal and ordering denovo trial. It is a case of abuse of the process of the Court and in order to prevent the same and secure the ends of justice this petition is accepted and the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge I, Quetta is set aside.

3. The above are the reasons of my short order of even date.

M.A.K./264/Q Petition accepted.