Masood Ahmed Abbasi vs Gulab Khan And 2 Other
This matter arises from a criminal appeal filed against the acquittal of the accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, after an F.I.R. was registered under Sections 448 and 454/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding a dispute over plot possession between the appellant and his watchman of 40 years. The core legal question was whether the statutory ingredients of criminal trespass were made out when possession was originally handed over with permission and withheld. The Sindh High Court held that no trespass occurred since the appellant had parted with possession decades prior, rendering the penal provisions inapplicable and the Magistrate's acquittal proper. The court established that a dispute involving long-standing permissive possession does not constitute criminal trespass under Sections 448 and 454 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and consequently dismissed the appeal with costs.
- Whether the withholding of possession originally handed over with permission constitutes criminal trespass under Sections 448 and 454 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can an appeal against an order of acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be sustained when no element of trespass is established?
- Section 448, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 454, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. JUDGMENT MUNEEB AHMED KHAN, J. - After hearing the learned counsel it appears that the grievance of the appellant is that his watchman, appointed by him 40 years before was not allowing the appellant to enter into the plot bearing No. 13, Sheet No. 17, Model Colony. Karachi. On Complaint, F.I.R. Was registered under Sections 448 and 454/34, P.P.C."The matter was proceeded by Magistrate and the accused was acquitted under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. With the observation that there was no trespass and the law applied in the F.I.R. Was not applicable, as admittedly there was no trespass and withholding the possession pf the plot was with the permission of the appellant.
2. I have perused the order of the Magistrate and find that reasons given in paragraphs 4 and 5 are proper. Learned State counsel has also stated that the instant appeal is not maintainable and the order of the Magistrate is proper. She further submits that the appellant has even not filed any document to show the ownership.
3. Keeping in view that appellant himself has parted of his. Possession about 40 years back to the alleged accused, therefore, there is no trespass and the appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be deposited with the clinic of this Court, within seven days.