| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 5047 2024 SLD 5047 2024 PCRLJ 1163 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 146 of 2022, decided on 19th September, 2022.Date of hearing: 19th September, 2022.
Before Aftab Ahmed Gorar, J.
Muhammad Ilyas Khan Tanoli for Appellant. Raja Sanaullah Khan for
Respondents. Abrar Ali Khichi, Addl. P.G. Sindh.
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 146 of 2022, decided on 19th September, 2022.Date of hearing: 19th September, 2022.
Before Aftab Ahmed Gorar, J.
Muhammad Ilyas Khan Tanoli for Appellant. Raja Sanaullah Khan for
Respondents. Abrar Ali Khichi, Addl. P.G. Sindh.
EESHAN MALIK---Appellant
VERSUS
MUHAMMAD NASIR and 5 others---Respondents
Law: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898
Section: 265-K,417,,,,, 3
Law: Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005
Section:
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 265-K & 417---Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005), S. 3---Prevention of illegal possession of property---Delivery of possession of property to owner---Appeal against acquittal---Application under S. 265-K of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, filed by the accused was allowed by the Trial Court---Validity---Purpose of provisions of S.265-K, Cr.P.C. was very much clear and it never prevented a Court from acquitting an accused at any stage of the case, if, after hearing the prosecution and the accused and for reasons to be recorded, the Court considered that there was no probability of the accused being convicted of the offence alleged against them---There was no legal embargo for exercising of powers conferred under S.265-K Cr.P.C, but even then the Court cannot deprive the prosecution of an opportunity to produce tangible evidence under the garb of S.265-K, Cr.P.C., therefore, it was mandatory for the Court that such discretion must be based on reasons exercised with due care and caution with sole object to prevent fruitless trial when it was apparent from the record that there was no probability of the accused being convicted of the offence---Perusal of impugned order revealed that after examining the entire material, the trial Court observed that there would be no probability of conviction of respondents 1 to 3 in near future and acquitted them from the charge under S.265-K, Cr.P.C.---Appellant had failed to establish extra ordinary reasons and circumstances, whereby the acquittal order recorded by the Trial Court might be interfered with by the High Court---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.Naik Muhammad and 5 others v. Naseebullah and another 2008 PCr.LJ 11; Nawaizish Ali and another v. The State and others 2010 SCMR 1785; Rehmatullah v. Mst. Zahida and another 2008 YLR 1044; Shaikh Muhammad Naseem v. Mst. Farida Gul 2016 SCMR 1931; Dr. Sikandar Ali Mohiuddin v. Station House Officer and others 2021 SCMR 1486; Seema Fareed and others v. The State and another 2008 SCMR 839; Hashim v. Gul Muhammad and 2 others 2009 PCr.LJ 36; Muhammad Ali v. Abdul Haq and 2 others 2010 MLD 1920;…
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