1991 P Cr (PLP)
Sh. NISAR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | Sh. NISAR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 P Cr (PLP) (Sh. NISAR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 10th February, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 448
Civil suits between parties regarding entitlement of disputed shop were pending
Proceedings under S.145, Cr.P.C. had also taken place
Accused allegedly had put his own lock over the lock of complainant
Accused did not physically enter the shop
Putting lock over the lock did not constitute an offence of criminal trespass
Conviction and sentence was set aside in circumstances. Kh. Shaukat Ali for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Petitioner. Kh. Shaukat Ali for the State. Date of hearing: 10th February, 1991. Sh. Nisar Ahmad, petitioner, stands convicted under section 448, P.P.C. and sentenced to six months' R.I. on the charge of criminal trespass into the shop in possession of the complainant.
2. No one has appeared for the petitioner. Since the revision, after having been admitted, cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution, so I have examined the case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State.
3. I feel persuaded to accept this revision on the ground that, admittedly, there were civil suits between the parties with regard to the entitlement of this shop. Furthermore, there were proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. with regard to the possession of the shop in dispute. The dispute between the parties over the shop appears to be of civil nature. Furthermore, the allegations that the petitioner had put his own lock on the shop already locked by the complainant does not amount to criminal trespass into the shop, inasmuch as unless a person physically enters into the house or shop, it cannot be said that he had trespassed into the house/shop/building. The act of double lock is not a criminal trespass in any manner. For what has been said above, the revision is accepted and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge under section 448, P.P.C. He is on bail and stands discharged of the bail bonds. SA./N-451/L Revision accepted.