MASOOD AHMED ABBASI vs GULAB KHAN and 2 others
This criminal appeal challenges an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regarding an FIR registered under Sections 448 and 454/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant alleged that his watchman, who had been in possession of his plot for 40 years, was preventing him from entering the property. The Magistrate acquitted the accused, finding no evidence of trespass because the possession was originally permissive and the appellant had voluntarily parted with possession decades earlier. The High Court reviewed the Magistrate's order and affirmed the decision, noting that the appellant failed to provide documentation of ownership and that the essential elements of criminal trespass were absent given the permissive nature of the long-standing possession. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal with costs, holding that where possession is permissive and long-standing, criminal trespass charges are not sustainable, and the acquittal order was legally sound.
- Can a criminal charge of trespass be sustained when the accused has been in permissive possession of the property for a long duration?
- Is an order of acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 maintainable when the complainant fails to establish the essential elements of the alleged offense?
- Does the voluntary parting of possession by an owner preclude a subsequent claim of criminal trespass against the possessor?
- 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
ORDER
1. 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, FIR was registered under Section 448 and 454/34 PPC. 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 tress pass and the law applied in the FIR was not applicable, as admittedly there was no tress pass 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 tress pass and the appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs,2000/- to be deposited with the clinic of this Court, within seven days. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.