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 1^st. 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