Forcible possession of his land constructed boundary wall--

 PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 765

Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 (XI of 2005)--

----Ss. 3 & 5--Appellant filed a private complaint against respondents on ground that accused alongwith co-accused look forcible possession of his land constructed boundary wall--Respondents were acquitted by ADJ--Appellants/complainants and perusing record it is found) that trial Court has not caused any miscarriage of justice by acquitting the respondents and has rightly disbelieved the evidence on valid reasons--An order of acquittal can only be interfered with when it is found on the face of it as capricious, perverse, arbitrary or foolish in nature, factors lacking in instant case--Act was applicable only to those accused persons who had credentials o antecedents of Qabza Group and they were found involve in illegal activities and belong to a gang of land grabbers or land mafia; case in hand is not covered by these considerations--Impugned view of acquittal, taken by trial Judge, being a possible view, does not call for any interference--Appeal was dismissed.

                                                                                     [Pp. 766] A & B

2012 SCMR 1533.

Ms. Asma Mushtaq, Advocate for Appellants.

Mr. Khalid Parvez, DPG for State.

Date of hearing: 13.2.2019.

 PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 765
[Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi]
Present: Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.
ABDUL RAZZAQ, etc.--Appellants
versus
MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR, etc.--Respondents
Crl. Appeal No. 939 of 2018, decided on 13.2.2019.

Order

Appellant filed a private complaint in the Court of Sessions, Rawalpindi under Sections 3 read with Section 5 of the Illegal

Dispossession Act, 2005, against the respondents on the ground that on 19.10.2015 Muhammad Zubair respondent/accused alongwith co-accused took forcible possession of his land and constructed a boundary wall, situating in Mouza Sihal Tehsil and District Rawalpindi. The complaint was entrusted to a learned Additional Sessions Judge, who sent for the respondents for 9.3.2016 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, acquitted the respondents vide judgment dated 21.06.2018, vires whereof are under challenge through this Constitutional petition.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants/complainants contends that the learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment in utter disregard to the prosecution evidence available on the record; that the learned trial Court while acquitting the accused/respondents has not appreciated the evidence on record in its true perspective and that the impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjectures.

3. Heard.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants/ complainants and perusing the record it is found that the learned/trial Court has not caused any miscarriage of justice by acquitting the respondents and has rightly disbelieved the evidence on valid reasons. An order of acquittal can only be interfered with when it is found on the face of it as capricious, perverse, arbitrary or foolish in nature, factors lacking in this case. Law declared in the case of Habib Ullah & others vs. Abdul Manan & others (2012 SCMR 1533) enunciates that the Act was applicable only to those accused persons who had credentials or antecedents of Qabza Group and they were found involved in illegal activities and belong to a gang of land grabbers or land mafia; case in hand is not covered by these considerations. Impugned view of acquittal, taken by the learned trial Judge, being a possible view, does not call for any interference. Dismissed.

(A.A.K.)          Appeal dismissed