2008 P Cr (PLP)
ASHIQ HUSSAIN and another — Petitioners Versus ATHAR SHER and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ASHIQ HUSSAIN and another — Petitioners Versus ATHAR SHER and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 P Cr (PLP) (ASHIQ HUSSAIN and another — Petitioners Versus ATHAR SHER and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khan Dil Muhammad Khan for Petitioners.
- Sardar Zafar Ahmad for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that apart from the factual and legal objections which he has to raise before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the impugned order could not have been passed as the trial has yet to commence. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 has tried to support the impugned order with reference to section 7 of the said Act, 2005.
- 3. I have gone through the copies of the records. Now I find that the complaint was filed on 21-1-2006. The statement of the complainant was recorded on 24-1-2006 and thereafter a report was called from the S.H.O. concerned. This report was ultimately filed on 21-2-2006. Learned counsel for the complainants expressed dissatisfaction. It was directed that an officer of the D.S.P. rank should file a report. It appears that this order was not complied with. Ultimately on 8-3-2006, Malik Ghulam Mustafa, Advocate, was appointed as a Local Commissioner. His report was filed on 10-3-2006 while on 13-3-2006 the impugned order was passed. Now it is well-settled that a criminal trial commences when the accused persons have been summoned and a charge has been framed in the case. Reference be made to the case of Haq Nawaz and others v. The State and others 2000 SCMR 785. Now it is a matter of record that neither the accused persons have been summoned and there is no question of framing, charge and neither one has been framed. This being so, the condition precedent for passing of an order under section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 i.e. "during the trial" does not exist. The impugned order, therefore, is wholly without lawful authority and is accordingly set aside. The result would be that the matter shall be deemed to be pending. After the commencement of the trial in the manner stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge can take up the matter of passing, of an interim order and decide the same after hearing all concerned. Disposed of.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 3 & 7
Trial would commence when accused persons had been summoned and a charge had been framed in the case
Accused persons, in the present case, having not been summoned, there was no question of framing the charge
Condition precedent for passing of an order under S.7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 i.e. `during the trial' did not exist
Impugned order being wholly without lawful authority, was set aside resultantly the matter would be deemed to be pending.
Judgment & Decree
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.
For the order I propose to pass to this case, I will not be referring to the facts in much detail. Suffice it to say that on 21-1-2006 the respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed a complaint (Annexure "D") under section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, against Ghulam Yasin, Bilal and 40 unknown persons alleging that they have been dispossessed on 11-12-2005. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan, in the first instance, sought a report from the local police which was filed. Thereafter, he appointed a Local Commissioner who filed his report. Vide order, dated 13-3-2006 he proceeded to direct that the S.H.O., Police Station Saddar, Dera Ghazi Khan, to get vacated the plot in question from the respondents in the case and delivered to the complainants on or before 15-3-2006.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that apart from the factual and legal objections which he has to raise before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the impugned order could not have been passed as the trial has yet to commence. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 has tried to support the impugned order with reference to section 7 of the said Act, 2005.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. Now I find that the complaint was filed on 21-1-2006. The statement of the complainant was recorded on 24-1-2006 and thereafter a report was called from the S.H.O. concerned. This report was ultimately filed on 21-2-2006. Learned counsel for the complainants expressed dissatisfaction. It was directed that an officer of the D.S.P. rank should file a report. It appears that this order was not complied with. Ultimately on 8-3-2006, Malik Ghulam Mustafa, Advocate, was appointed as a Local Commissioner. His report was filed on 10-3-2006 while on 13-3-2006 the impugned order was passed. Now it is well-settled that a criminal trial commences when the accused persons have been summoned and a charge has been framed in the case. Reference be made to the case of Haq Nawaz and others v. The State and others 2000 SCMR
785. Now it is a matter of record that neither the accused persons have been summoned and there is no question of framing, charge and neither one has been framed. This being so, the condition precedent for passing of an order under section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 i.e. "during the trial" does not exist. The impugned order, therefore, is wholly without lawful authority and is accordingly set aside. The result would be that the matter shall be deemed to be pending. After the commencement of the trial in the manner stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge can take up the matter of passing, of an interim order and decide the same after hearing all concerned. Disposed of.
4. A copy of this judgment be immediately remitted to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan. H.B.T./A-256/L Order accordingly.