MASOOD AHMED ABBASI vs GULAB KHAN and 2 others
This matter arises from an appeal filed against the acquittal of the accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, in a case registered under Sections 448 and 454/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning a dispute over plot possession. The core legal question was whether the offence of house trespass was made out when possession had been voluntarily parted with decades prior. The Sindh High Court held that no trespass occurred since the appellant had parted with possession of the plot to the accused approximately forty years prior, and withholding possession was with the appellant's initial permission. The court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable and improper, upholding the Magistrate's acquittal order and imposing costs.
- Whether an acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is sustainable when possession was voluntarily parted with?
- Does withholding possession of a plot originally given with permission constitute criminal trespass under Section 448 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 448, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 454, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. ' MUNIB AHMAD 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 of 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.