HAJI ALI MUHAMMAD Versus ABDUL RASHID AND 8 OTHERS
ORDER
The facts giving rise to this petition for Special Leave to Appeal under section 417(2), Cr.P.C. are that Haji Ali Muhammad petitioner filed complaint under section 420/408/406/418/34, P.P.C against Abdul Rashid and 8 others, respondents Nos.1 to 9. After preliminary inquiry, the learned Magistrate summoned the respondents. He framed the charge under section 420, P.P.C. The respondents denied .the charge and claimed to be tried. Haji Ali Muhammad appeared as P.W.1. He produced Dilawar and Khan Muhammad as P.Ws. 2 and 3 respectively. The trial Court examined Abaid Ullah Local Commissioner as C.W.1. On the conclusion of the trial, the complaint was dismissed and the respondents were acquitted of the charge, hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt punishable under section 420, P.P.C. to the respondents; that the trial Court has not given sound reasons in support of the acquittal; that the trial Court has not discussed the evidence more particularly of Abaid Ullah C.W.1 and that the revision filed by the respondents against the order whereby they were summoned to face trial was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge but the reasons given by him were not considered by the learned trial Court at the time of the final decision of the case.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. I find that the dispute between the parties relates to the settlement of accounts; that the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as the statements made by the prosecution witnesses do not disclose a case of criminal liability; that the trial Court has considered the statement of Abaid Ullah C.W. 1 and that the trial Court has applied its conscious mind to the relevant evidence and has given cogent reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at by it. It is well‑settled that once an accused person is acquitted, strong and exceptional grounds would be required for interference with the judgment of acquittal, which I do not see in the case in hand.
For what has been said above, the petition is dismissed in limine.
S.A./A‑336/L Petition dismissed.