ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD

              Cr. Rev. Appl No.S-01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08 of 2011

DATE                            ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

16.05.2011

Mr. Aftab Ahmed Baloch Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Amir Ali Liskani Advocate for Respondent No.1

Mr. Shahzado Nahyoon Asstt. P.G. for the State.

                                      =

          By this Criminal Revision, the applicant has challenged the order dated 04.10.2010 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sanghar admitted the complaint u/s 3,4,5 & 6 of Illegal Dispossession Act and issued Bailable Warrants in the sum of Rs.10,000/- against the accused.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that while admitting the criminal complaint on regular file, learned trial court failed to consider that no case u/s 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act was made out but instead of considering these points properly, the criminal complaint was taken on regular file and B.Ws were issued. Learned counsel further argued that Respondent No.1 never remained in possession of the land in question nor has any right and title over the land in question but he fraudulently got issued allotment of U.A.No.1 Deh Sadrat-4 Tapo Jakhrao Taluka and District Sanghar in his name with the help of revenue functionaries. He further argued that the applicant had filed Civil suit in the court of Senior Civil Judge Sanghar but the same was rejected u/o 7 rule 11 CPC without issuing notices to the other side, however, he filed appeal assailing the impugned order and it was also dismissed and thereafter according to learned counsel revision application has been filed in this court, which is pending.

Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 argued that Respondent No.1 is rightful owner of the land in question and the applicant had dispossessed him from the land, therefore, complaint was rightly filed under Illegal Dispossession Act. He further argued that no notice has been issued to the Respondent No.1 for the said revision if any filed by the applicant in this court, therefore, he is totally ignorant of pendency of any revision Application. He further argued that after taking cognizance, the charge has already been framed and now matter is fixed for evidence, therefore, he supports the impugned order.

Learned Assistant Prosecutor General Sindh is of the view that since cognizance has been taken and charge has been framed, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order and that let the trial be concluded in accordance with law.

I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and am of the view that since it is an admitted position that after taking cognizance charge has been framed and now matter is posted for recording evidence and no application has been moved by the applicant u/s 265-K Cr. P.C for acquittal as according to learned counsel for the applicant, there is no probability that the accused has committed any offence, therefore, right course of action is to move proper application u/s 265- K Cr. P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant has agreed to move such application in the trial court and does not press this application.

The Revision Application is dismissed as not pressed. The learned trial court is directed to decide the application if any moved by the applicant u/s 265-K Cr.P.C within a period of one month.

                                                                                      JUDGE

A.k