IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR
Cr. Revision Appln.No.S-
104 of 2016
Date Order
with Signature of Hon’ble Judge
For hearing of main case
04.03.2019
Mr. Raj Kumar G. Rajput Advocate for the
Applicant
Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Channa Advocate for respondent No.1
Mr. Abdul Rehman Kolachi, DPG for the State
>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<
Irshad Ali Shah, J; The
applicant by way of instant criminal revision application has impugned order
dated 27.06.2016 passed by learned 1st. Additional Sessions Judge
Sukkur, whereby his direct complaint for prosecution of the private respondent
under section 3/4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was dismissed.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel
for the applicant that learned trial Court has dismissed the direct complaint
of the applicant without lawful justification, that too without providing
chance of hearing to him. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the
impugned order.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for
the private respondent that the applicant is intending to convert the civil
litigation into criminal that too on the basis of false documents. By
contending so, he sought for dismissal of the instant criminal revision
application.
4. Learned D.P.G for the State did not support the impugned
order.
5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the
record.
6. An opinion was formed by learned trial
Court that the applicant has not been able to bring forward any proof which may
suggest that the private respondent is property grabber or he belongs to Qabza group land Mafia. Seemingly, on the basis of such
formation of opinion, learned trial Court called upon the applicant to argue
out the maintainability of his complaint, and consequently dismissed the same with
the following observation;
“the complainant was
given sufficient time to argue on point of maintainability of the complaint but
neither he nor his counsel argued on the point of maintainability which shows
that complainant has lost his interest to proceed with the matter.”
7. The
bare perusal of the above order would reveal that the applicant has not been
heard by learned trial Court before passing of impugned order. It is settled
principle of law that none is to be condemned unheard. Consequently,
the impugned order is set aside with direction to learned trial Court to pass
the same afresh after providing chance of hearing to all the concerned, as fair
trial is guaranteed by Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic
of the Pakistan 1973, which reads as under:-
“10(A) Right to fair trial. For the
determination of his civil rights and obligation or in any criminal charge
against him a person shall be entitled to a fair trial and due process.”
8. The
instant Criminal Revision Application is disposed of in above terms.
Judge
ARBROHI