Law: Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961

Section: 3, 448, 447

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 441, 448, 447

  (a) Conciliation Courts Ordinance (XLIV of 1961) -- S. 3 & Sched., Part I-Jurisdiction-Complaint filed under S. 448, P. P. C. cognizance taken and even conviction recorded under such section - Conviction on appeal altered to one under S. 447, P. P. C.-Contention that offence having fallen under S. 447, trial Court wrongly assumed jurisdiction, held, completely miscon ceived-What S. 3(1)(a) bars is trial and trials begin when proceedings are initiated-Legality and validity of trial, held, is determined in relation to offence for which accused is tried and not by reference to offence of which he is convicted-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 447 & 448. Muhammad Iqbal and others v. Fazal-ur-Rahman P L D 1967 Lab. 65 and, Manzur Hossain v. The State P L D 1970 S C 51 distinguished. Shafi Muhammad v. Mia P L D 1967 Dacca 375 and Samad Ali v. Ejazuddin 1970 P Cr. L J 9 ref. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 441 & 448-Criminal trespass-Criminal intent-Complainant locking his house, going away to another Province, and on coming back finding his lock broken and portion of his plot occupied by accused-Accused on being asked to vacate plot not only refusing but growing furious and starting quarrel-Intent to annoy complainant, held, could be inferred on circumstances-View that physical resistance must in all cases accompany entry on property in order to constitute criminal trespass-Likely to lead to dangerous results and tantamount to putting as absurd interpretation on meaning of "trespass"-Crite rion in such cases-Intention of accused and not physical presence or absence of owner or occupier of property subjected to trespass. It was contented that there was no evidence to show that trespass was, committed with an intention which is the necessary ingredient of criminal, trespass under section 441, P. P. C. As it is the case of the complainant is that he had locked the house and had gone temporarily to Punjab and when he came he found that the lock had been broken and the petitioner had occupied a portion of the plot belonging to him. It is further the case of the complainant that in spite of the petitioner being told to vacate the plot' the…