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