2006 P Cr (PLP)

ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.

The necessary facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that on 5-9-2005 the petitioners filed a complaint under section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 maintaining therein that during the night between 29/30-8-2005 the petitioners had been illegally dispossessed of their property by respondents Nos.l to

3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang seized of that complaint called for a report in that respect from the local police and on 27-9-2005 Muhammad Yar, S.-I./S.H.O. of Police Station City, Jhang submitted the requisite report. After receipt of that report the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang found that the Police Officer had failed to pin point in his report the exact date on which the petitioners had been dispossessed of their property by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and, thus, the Police Officer was required by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang to file a fresh report in that respect. Thereafter the same Police Officer filed his fresh report in that regard on 3-10-2005 and according to the same respondents Nos. 1 to 3 had obtained possession of the relevant property in the year 2004 upon its purchase from somebody else, meaning thereby that the petitioners had never been dispossessed by respondents Nos.1 to

3. After receipt of the fresh report the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang dismissed the petitioners complaint on 10-10-2005 by holding that at the time of introduction of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 the petitioners were not in possession of the relevant property and thus, they could not file a complaint regarding their alleged dispossession taking place prior to introduction of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The said order, dated 10-10-2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang has been assailed by the petitioners before this Court through the present revision petitions.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of this case it has been observed by me that the only basis on which the petitioners' complaint was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang was the second report submitted by the Police Officer maintaining therein that respondents Nos.1 to 3 were in possession of the relevant property since the year 2004. A perusal of the said second report submitted by the Police Officer before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang shows that the figure `2004' mentioned therein stood visibly tampered and interpolated with an it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang had not attended to this critical aspect of the matter before non-suiting the petitioners on this ground alone. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang had also failed to notice the first report submitted by the said Police Officer clearly showed that the petitioner had in fact been dispossessed by respondents Nos.1 to 3 whereas in the second report furnished by the same Police Officer a volte face had been taken by him by maintaining that the petitioners had never been dispossessed by respondents Nos.l to 3 and the said respondents had obtained possession of the relevant property from somebody else after purchasing it from that person. Such a glaring change of stance on the part of the said Police officer ought to have put the learned Additional Sessions Judge to caution but unfortunately that does not appear to be the case as the learned Additional Sessions Judge had decided to rely upon the second report without even adverting to the above mentioned infirmities which had put to doubt its authenticity or reliability.

4. The discussion made above shows that the matter of entertainability of the petitioners' complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 had not been attended to by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang with the seriousness that it deserved and this surely calls for a remand. This revision petition is, therefore, allowed, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang on 10-10-2005 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang for passage of a fresh order in respect of entertainability of the petitioners complaint after satisfying his judicial conscious. H.B.T./M-321/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision allowed.