| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 993 2011 SLD 993 2011 YLR 979 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Revision No. 710 of 2010, heard on 23-11-2010.
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKHAR NAQVI, JUSTICE
Ghulam Rasool Chaudhry for Petitioners. Mian Muhammad Awais Mazhar, Deputy P.G. for the State. Taqi Ahmed Khan for the Complainant.
Criminal Revision No. 710 of 2010, heard on 23-11-2010.
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKHAR NAQVI, JUSTICE
Ghulam Rasool Chaudhry for Petitioners. Mian Muhammad Awais Mazhar, Deputy P.G. for the State. Taqi Ahmed Khan for the Complainant.
KHAIRAT HUSSAIN AND 6 OTHERS
VS
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, SHEIKHUPURA AND 3 OTHERS
Law: Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005
Section: 3,7
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 265-K
(a) Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005)--- ----Preamble, Ss.3 & 7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.265-K---Illegal possession of property---Complaint against dispossession---Maintainability--- Scope--- Illegal Dis possession Act, 2005, was a special enact-ment, which had been promulgated to discourage the land grabbers and to protect the right of owner and the lawful occu-pant, but the provisions of subsection (1) of S.3 of said Act, were in the form of preventive provisions--Under subsection (1) of S.3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, all persons had been prohibited to commit the offence detailed in that provision of law---Maintainability of the "complaint" before the Trial Court was not questionable; firstly for the reason that court had adopted all codal formalities before summoning accused persons; and secondly that prime facts and circumstances of the case fully attracted the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005---While filing complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 the complainant was only required to prove that he was a lawful occupier of the property when he was allegedly dispossessed---Contention that complainants were not owners of the property, had no weight at all---In the present case, primafacie sufficient material was available against the petitioners and complainants were entitled to be afforded opportunity to prove their plea through leading evidence at trial---Civil suit allegedly filed by the petitioners qua the same land, pertained to civil rights of the parties and same could not bar initiation of criminal proceedings---In absence of any illegality/legal infirmity in the impugned order inviting interference by High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, revision petition stood dismissed. Muhammad Akram and 9 others v. Muhammad Yousaf and another 2009 SCMR 1066 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 265-K---Power of the court to acquit accused, exercise of-Power of court to acquit accused under S.265-K, Cr.P.C., could be exercised at any stage, however, it could be in those cases where after hearing both sides, the court satisfied; that there was no possibility of accused being…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492