2008 PLP 1638 (MLD)
MASOOD AHMED ABBASI — Appellant Versus GULAB KHAN and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1638 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MASOOD AHMED ABBASI — Appellant Versus GULAB KHAN and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1638 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 1638 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1638 (MLD) (MASOOD AHMED ABBASI — Appellant Versus GULAB KHAN and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Mir Muhammad Khan for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.448 & 454/34
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417--Appeal against acquittal
Grievance of the appellant/complainant was that his Watchman, appointed 40 years before, was not allowing him to enter into the plot in question
F.I.R. was registered against respondent accused (watchman) under Ss.448 & 454/34, P.P.C.
Matter was proceeded by Magistrate and accused was acquitted under S.249-A, Cr.P.C., with the observation that no trespass had been committed in the case
State Counsel had also stated that present appeal was not maintainable and the order of the Magistrate was proper
Appellant had even not filed any document to show the ownership of plot in question
Appellant having himself parted with his possession of the plot about 40 years back to alleged accused, no trespass was committed in the case
Appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.
After hearing the learned counsel it appears that the grievance of the appellant is that his watchman appointed by him 40 years before was not allowing the appellant to enter into the plot bearing No.13, Sheet No.17, Model Colony, Karachi. On Complaint, F.I.R. was registered under sections 448 and 454/34, P.P.C. The matter was proceeded by Magistrate and the accused was acquitted under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. with the observation that there was no trespass and the law applied in the F.I.R. was not applicable as admittedly there was no trespass and withholding the possession of the plot was with the permission of the appellant. I have perused the order of the Magistrate and find that reasons given in paragraphs 4 and 5 are proper. Learned State counsel has also stated that the instant appeal is not maintainable and the order of the Magistrate is proper. She further submits that the appellant has even not filed any document to show the ownership. Keeping in view that appellant himself has parted of his possession about 40 years back to the alleged accused, therefore, there is no trespass and the appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs.2,000 to be deposited with the clinic of this Court, within seven days. H.B.T./M-120/K Appeal dismissed.