ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Revision Appln.No.S-09 of 2018

DATE                    ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For hearing of main case.

11.05.2020.

Mr.Habibullah Ghouri, Advocate for the applicants.

                   Mr.Sarfraz Khan Jatoi, Advocate for private respondent

Mr. Muhammad Noonari, D.P.G for the State.

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

Irshad Ali Shah-J: The applicants way of instant Crl.Revision Application have impugned order dated 14.02.2018, passed by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdadkot, whereby the direct complaint filed against them by the private respondent under the provision of Section 3/4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, has been brought on record.

2.                 It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have never dispossessed the private respondent from the subject land; the title whereof is under dispute; the reports of Mukhtiarkar and police have not been considered properly by learned trial Court, therefore, the impugned order being illegal is liable to be set aside.

3.                 Learned D.P.G. for the State and learned counsel for the private respondent have sought for dismissal of instant Crl.Revision Application by supporting the impugned order by contending that the title of subject land is undisputed.

4.                 I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

5.                 There is difference between inquiry and trial. In inquiry, one has to make out a case for cognizance and such burden is very light and in trial one has to prove his case beyond the shadow of doubt and such burden is somehow heavy. In the instant matter, on inquiry the private respondent has been able to make out his case for cognizance, which has rightly been taken by learned trial Court, on the basis of material/record made available before it by the private respondent and the officials by way of their reports. If the applicants are having feeling that there is dispute over the title of subject land and they being innocent have been involved in instant case falsely by the private respondent, then subject to law they could prove their innocence adequately by joining the trial.

6.                No illegality is pointed out, which may call for making interference with the impugned order by this Court by way of instant Crl.Revision Application, it is dismissed accordingly.

                                                                                          J U D G E