1992 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Akhtar Addl. A.‑G. for the State. Iqbal Bhatti for Respondents. Date of hearing: 14th December, 1991. The present criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment, dated 12‑3‑1986, whereby Sh. Iftikhar Ali, Magistrate 1st Class, Lahore, acquitted the respondents of the offence charged under section 448, P.P.C.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant, Abdul Majeed, had lodged the F.I.R. No.32/83, dated 17‑3‑1983, registered at Police Station New Anarkali, Lahore, wherein, in brief, it was alleged that a Bailiff of the Civil Court had executed the warrant of eviction against Mst. Naziran Begum in respect of the lower portion of House No.15 Street No.1, Mela Ram Street behind Pilot Hotel, owned by Muhammad Aslam, respondent No.l, and that in pursuance thereto the Bailiff and the present 'respondents had forcibly removed the household goods of the complainant from the upper portion of the said house despite his being in possession of a stay order in respect thereof but ultimately the complainant was able to persuade the Bailiff and the respondents of the genuineness of his stay order and resultantly they had gone away without ejecting him from the premises. It is further stated therein that the complainant had found some household articles and the money amounting to Rs.5,600 missing, on checking the luggage in question that had been placed forcibly out of the house, as stated above. The challan against the respondents was submitted in respect of section 448, P.P.C. only and the respondents were acquitted of the said charge as stated above vide the impugned judgment.

3. The learned Additional Advocate‑General ha5*contended on behalf of the State, in support of the present appeal, that the acquittal of the respondents is liable to be set aside and they are likely to be convicted as charged, as the impugned judgment has primarily based the finding of acquittal on the ground that all the prosecution witnesses were related to the complainant and as such to no independent corroboration was forthcoming of the offence charged. In this respect, he pointed out that P.W.5, Safdar Ali and P.W.6, Sardar Khan, arc neither related to the complainant nor are inimical towards the accused.

4. However, a perusal of the impugned judgment clearly establishes that the learned trial Court had also taken into consideration that if the offence as alleged has taken place at all it was in pursuance to the action initiated by the Bailiff and that to prove the case against the present respondents it was ‑essential for the prosecution to charge the Bailiff of the offence alleged to establish a case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused/respondents. In this respect, the learned trial Court had observed that the missing of such a vital link in the prosecution story had rendered the entire prosecution version of doubtful authenticity and as such the benefit of the same has to go to the

5. In view of what has been stated above, the Court is of the view that the State has failed to make out a case for interference with the impugned judgment as the same has not been shown to be perverse or based on the violation of the accepted principle of appreciation of evidence. As held in Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others P L D 1985 SC 11, no interference with an order of acquittal will take place even if a different reasonable conclusion is possible on the basis of the evidence on the record and that the finding of acquittal can only be interfered with if it is found wholly artificial, shocking and ridiculous, or it is such a conclusion which no reasonable person would conceivably arrive at. In the present case, the same not being the case, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed for being without merit. Hence it is dismissed accordingly SA./S‑60/L Appeal dismissed.