SH. NISAR AHMAD Versus THE STATE Nemo , Kh. Shaukat Ali for the State.

Sh. Nisar Ahmad, petitioner, stands convicted under section 448, P.P.C. and sentenced to six months' R.I. on the charge of criminal trespass into the shop in possession of the complainant.

2. No one has appeared for the petitioner. Since the revision, after having been admitted, cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution, so I have examined the case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State.

3. I feel persuaded to accept this revision on the ground that, admittedly, there were civil suits between the parties with regard to the entitlement of this shop. Furthermore, there were proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. with regard to the possession of the shop in dispute. The dispute between the parties over the shop appears to be of civil nature. Furthermore, the allegations that the petitioner had put his own lock on the shop already locked by the complainant does not amount to criminal trespass into the shop, inasmuch as unless a person physically enters into the house or shop, it cannot be said that he had trespassed into the house/shop/building. The act of double lock is not a criminal trespass in any manner.

For what has been said above, the revision is accepted and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge under section 448, P.P.C. He is on bail and stands discharged of the bail bonds.

SA./N-451/L Revision accepted.