2009 PLP 1066 (MLD)

MALIK MUHAMMAD AQIL AWAN, J.

This matter pertains to the year, 1999. The order-sheet, dated 28-4-2008 shows that none was present on behalf of appellant whereas on behalf of State an objection was taken that the present appeal is incompetent as it could have been filed only by the State against the acquittal under section 13(E) of the Arms Ordinance. Thereafter the successive case diaries show that for one reason or the other matter was being adjourned and the question of maintainability, as stated above raised on behalf the State was not resolved. It is an admitted position of fact that Alam Khan alias Alam Sher son of Allah Dad was nominated in Crime No.48 of 1997 lodged at Police Station Mirpur Sakro on behalf of State by A.S.-I. Khair Muhammad Soomro. In pursuance of such F.I.R., a usual challan was submitted and the case came up for hearing before Civil Judge, FCM Mirpur Sakro wherein the learned Judge acquitted the accused Alam Khan alias Alam Sher under section 245(i), Cr.P.C. from the charge in question. One Mst. Jannat has filed the present Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.4 of 1999 calling into question the acquittal order/judgment, dated 24-12-1998: In the Memo of acquittal appeal Mst. Jannat has no where disclosed her locus standai/grievance to maintain the present appeal, having been filed under section 411(2-A), Cr.P.C. section 417(i) gives right of appeal against the acquittal to the Provincial Government in any case, whereas subsection (2) gives right of appeal to the complainant in any case, instituted upon complaint. Subsequent (2-A), Cr.P.C. was incorporated by way of amendment where the right of appeal has been conferred upon a person aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by the Court. It is admitted position of the fact that the case from which respondent is acquitted was a State case and was not a Direct Complaint. The second aspect of the matter is, that the case was under section 13(E) out of which a lady like Mst. Jannat having disclosed no relationship either with the complainant or with the accused cannot be termed as aggrieved person. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of State has relied upon a case of Haji Abdul Sattar v. The State, reported in 2000 PCr.LJ 766, in which the Single Bench of this Court while interpreting the provisions of section 417(2-A) in case of Acquittal under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 has held, "An individual cannot, therefore, claim himself to be an aggrieved person within the meaning of section 417(2-A), Cr.P.C. on the ground that the said weapon was used, or could have been used, against him, as this possibility would also exist, had there been a licensed weapon, but, in that case, there would be no offence under section 13(d), Arms Ordinance. In case of acquittal from a charge of an offence under section 13(d), Arms Ordinance, the State can only be the aggrieved party. No individual can be an aggrieved person in that case for the purpose of section 417(2-A), Cr.P.C. The appeal being filed by a person not authorized by law to do so, is not maintainable." Following the dictum in the aforementioned case, wherein word `aggrieved' has been interpreted in a case where acquittal is ordered under section 13-D. In the present case acquittal is under section 13-E on a case instituted by State, therefore, present acquittal appeal having been filed by an unauthorized person and as such not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost. H.B.T./J-10/K Appeal dismissed.