ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR
Cr. Rev. Appln. No.S- 78 of 2018
Date Order with Signature of Hon’ble Judge
1.
For orders on office
objection
2.
For hearing of main case
3.
For hearing of MA
No.5352/2018
18.03.2019
Mr. Khan Muhammad Sangi Advocate for applicants.
Mr. Qurban
Ali Memon Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Shafi
Muhammad Mahar, D. P.G
>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<
Irshad Ali Shah,
J;- The facts in
brief necessary for disposal of instant Criminal Revision Application are that
the private respondents filed direct complaint against the applicants for their
prosecution for having committed an offence punishable under Section 3/4 of
Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. It was brought on record during pendency
whereof the private respondent filed an application under Section 7 of Illegal
Dispossession Act, 2005 for restoration of possession of the disputed property,
while applicants filed an application for comparison of thumb impression of the
private respondent on registered sale deed through NADRA.
2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moro, on due hearing dismissed the
application filed by the applicants while allowed the application of the
private respondent vide his order dated 10.09.2018, which is impugned by the
applicants before this Court by way of instant Criminal Revision Application.
3. It is contended by learned
counsel for the applicants that the ownership of the private respondent over
the disputed property was under cloud, as such,
learned trial court ought not to have passed the impugned order against the
applicants. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the impugned
order. In support of his contention, he relied upon case of Malik Muhammad Akhtar v. Additional Sessions Judge
and others (2016 MLD 1018)
4. Learned
D.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the private respondent have sought
for dismissal of the instant Criminal Revision Application by contending that the
applicants have already lost their litigation on civil side, the very order
whereby the direct complaint was brought on record has not been challenged by
the applicants, the possession of the disputed property has already been
restored to the private respondent and application moved by the applicants for comparison
of his thumb impression of the registered sale deed was in an attempt on the
part of the applicants to delay the proceedings.
5. I have
considered the above arguments and perused the record.
6. Apparently, the order
whereby the direct complaint filed by the private respondent has not been
challenged by the applicants, the applicants have already lost their litigation
on civil side, the possession of the disputed property, as per report of SHO,
PS, Moro, has already been restored to the private respondent, it was done on
the basis of interim order passed by learned trial court as a token of
ownership of the private respondent. In that situation, it is rightly being
contended by learned DPG for the State and learned Counsel for the private
respondent that the application moved by the applicants for comparison of the
thumb impression of the private respondent on the registered sale deed was with
a view to delay the proceedings.
7. The
case law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the applicants is on
distinguishable facts and circumstances. In that case, the complaint was not
competent yet interim order for restoration of possession was passed without
deciding an application for acquittal of the accused under Section 265-K Cr. P.
C. In the instant matter, the applicants
have not sought for their acquittal by filing an application under Section
265-K Cr. P. C. by making challenge to competency of very complaint.
8. In view of above, it could
be concluded safely that no illegality is committed by learned trial court
while passing the impugned order which may justify making interference with it
by this Court by way of instant Criminal Revision Application, it is dismissed
accordingly.
Judge
ARBROHI