ORDER SHEET

 

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT AT LARKANA

 

Criminal Revision Application No.S-61 of 2018

 

Date

               Order with signature of Judge

 

1.       For orders on office objection “A”.

2.      For hearing of case.

3.      For hearing of M.A.No.4708/2018 (S/A)

.-.-.-.-.

05.11.2018

 

Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri, Advocate for the applicants.

Respondent No.2. (Imdad Husain) present in person.

Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi, A.P.G.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

            The applicants by way of instant criminal revision application have impugned order dated 20.10.2018, passed by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, which reads as under;

“From the perusal of reports submitted by the SHO of concerned police station as well as Mukhtiarkar, Taluka Larkana, so also material placed on record, it appears that prima facie case for taking cognizance under the relevant provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is made out. Let the instant miscellaneous criminal complaint be brought on regular file which assigning sessions case number. Issue bailable warrants against the respondents/accused in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each with P.R bond in the like amount.”      

                        The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant criminal revision application are that the private respondent filed a direct complaint for prosecution of the applicants under section 3/4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, by making allegation of encroachment against them. It was brought on record by learned trial Court by way of order dated 20.10.2018, which is impugned by the applicants before this Court by way of instant criminal revision application, as stated above.

            It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the impugned order is non speaking, it has been passed without making discussion of reports of SHO PS Kanga and Mukhtiarkar (Revenue), Taluka Larkana. By contending so, he sought for reversal of the impugned order.

            It is contended by learned private respondent that his complaint has rightly been brought on record by learned trial Court. By contending so, he sought for dismissal of the instant criminal revision application.

            The learned A.P.G did not support the impugned order.

            I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

            As per private respondent, the land under dispute has been inherited by him from his father, but he has not been able to produce any documentary proof in that respect. Be that as it may, the order impugned is not containing any discussion about the reports which are furnished by SHO P.S Kanga and Mukhtiarkar (Revenue), Taluka Larkana, the same being non speaking is set aside with direction to learned trial Court to pass an appropriate and speaking order after providing chance of hearing to all the concerned.

            The instant criminal revision application is disposed of accordingly.

                    

                              J udge

                                       

Manzoor