ALI HASSAN vs ASGHAR ALI and 3 others
This criminal acquittal appeal challenges the order of the trial court regarding the dismissal of a direct complaint filed by the appellant against railway employees for demolition of a house and removal of articles. The core legal question is whether the ingredients of robbery under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were made out against public servants acting in the discharge of their official duties to remove encroachments on government land. The Sindh High Court held that the appellant failed to establish lawful possession of the encroached railway property and that the respondents were merely acting under official directives to remove encroachments, lacking any ingredients of the alleged offence. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal in limine. The key principle laid down is that criminal complaints filed maliciously to counter official action by public servants acting in the line of duty regarding the removal of encroachments are unsustainable.
- Does the demolition of an encroached structure by railway employees acting under official directives constitute robbery?
- Whether a direct criminal complaint filed to counter proposed action by authorities against an encroacher is maintainable?
- Is an appeal against acquittal liable to be dismissed in limine when the ingredients of the alleged offence are not attracted from the complainant's own examination-in-chief?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.---I have examined the order of the trial Court. From the contents of the examination-in-chief of the appellant it is an admitted fact that the appellant was occupying government plot and the respondents are railway employees who under the directives of their superiors were required to remove the encroachment and, they in discharge of their duties have demolished the house of the appellant. It is also not denied by the learned counsel for the appellant that the witnesses whom he wants to examine were his relations and no independent person of the locality was cited as witness.
2. ' It was the obligation of the appellant to establish that he was in lawful possession of the premises which was demolished and the articles lying inside the house were unauthorizedly removed by the respondents Nos.1 to 4 with intent to rob.
3. ' From the plain reading of the complaint and the examination-in-chief recorded before the Magistrate, it appear that the ingredients of section 392, P.P.C. Are not attracted and the direct complaint ex facie appears to have been filed to counter the proposed F.I.R. Which the I.O.W.
4. Railway wanted to lodge against the appellant. It is also not in the dispute that the premises was along with the railway track which area cannot be used or utilized for residential purposes.
5. ' For the aforesaid reasons coupled with the reasons stated in the order impugned, this criminal acquittal appeal is dismissed in limine.
Cited by 1 case
- Mst. AZRA GULZAR Versus MUHAMMAD FAROOQ 2018 CLC 1056