P L D 1993 Supreme Court 247 (PLP)
SHERIN BACHA and others‑‑Appellants Versus NAMOOS IQBAL and 3 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1993 Supreme Court 247 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑‑ S. 447 ‑‑‑ Trespass ‑‑‑ Parties who were closely related to each other had a land dispute which was settled through respectables in 1956; implementation of such settlement though took a long time but possession of the property was delivered to respondents on 30‑10‑1986 ‑‑‑ Respondents made a complaint for an offence under S. 447, P.P.C. on 17‑11‑1986 stating therein that despite the delivery of possession on 30‑10‑1986 the appellants/accused had committed the offence of trespass on 15‑11‑1986 on the same property ‑‑‑ Complaint in question was enquired into and was found false and was filed as not proved‑‑ Despite the failure of respondents complaint was revived for purpose of review and a fresh inquiry/trial commenced ‑‑‑ Appellants challenged the review/revival of the criminal case as illegal and without jurisdiction ‑‑‑ Court which heard the matter rejected the appellants' plea ‑‑‑ Appellants then filed a revision before the Government which was allowed on 21‑5‑1987, with observation that the possession had already been delivered and there was no sense in re‑opening the same ‑‑‑ Order of the Government was challenged by the respondents in *the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction which upheld the plea of the respondents that original complaint filed for offence under S. 447, P.P.C. had not been properly tried by a proper forum, therefore, same required to be re‑investigated and retried and same was sent back to the Trial Court "for fresh proceedings"‑‑‑Held, parties were wrongly advised to launch and pursue futile criminal proceedings as matter which stood settled by the respectables in 1956, got unsettled by the Law Enforcing Agencies‑‑ Instead of again opening the settled issue which was evidenced by delivery of possession through proper documentation, the proper course would have been to get the demarcation done or redone either through official Agencies or through the elders or respectables which even now could be done as Islamic mode.‑‑Administration of justice. |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | SHERIN BACHA and others‑‑Appellants Versus NAMOOS IQBAL and 3 others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1993 Supreme Court 247 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1993 Supreme Court 247 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑‑ S. 447 ‑‑‑ Trespass ‑‑‑ Parties who were closely related to each other had a land dispute which was settled through respectables in 1956; implementation of such settlement though took a long time but possession of the property was delivered to respondents on 30‑10‑1986 ‑‑‑ Respondents made a complaint for an offence under S. 447, P.P.C. on 17‑11‑1986 stating therein that despite the delivery of possession on 30‑10‑1986 the appellants/accused had committed the offence of trespass on 15‑11‑1986 on the same property ‑‑‑ Complaint in question was enquired into and was found false and was filed as not proved‑‑ Despite the failure of respondents complaint was revived for purpose of review and a fresh inquiry/trial commenced ‑‑‑ Appellants challenged the review/revival of the criminal case as illegal and without jurisdiction ‑‑‑ Court which heard the matter rejected the appellants' plea ‑‑‑ Appellants then filed a revision before the Government which was allowed on 21‑5‑1987, with observation that the possession had already been delivered and there was no sense in re‑opening the same ‑‑‑ Order of the Government was challenged by the respondents in *the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction which upheld the plea of the respondents that original complaint filed for offence under S. 447, P.P.C. had not been properly tried by a proper forum, therefore, same required to be re‑investigated and retried and same was sent back to the Trial Court "for fresh proceedings"‑‑‑Held, parties were wrongly advised to launch and pursue futile criminal proceedings as matter which stood settled by the respectables in 1956, got unsettled by the Law Enforcing Agencies‑‑ Instead of again opening the settled issue which was evidenced by delivery of possession through proper documentation, the proper course would have been to get the demarcation done or redone either through official Agencies or through the elders or respectables which even now could be done as Islamic mode.‑‑Administration of justice. bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1993 Supreme Court 247 (PLP) (SHERIN BACHA and others‑‑Appellants Versus NAMOOS IQBAL and 3 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- that it was a case of autrefois acquit, for appellants' side having been tried i the police case for the same offence for trespass together with theft (during the said trespass) by a Magistrate First Class they were finally acquitted (o
- Mian Shakirullah Jan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants. Abdus Samad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.l. Respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4: Ex parte.
- Date of hearing: 16th December, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
(on appeal from the judgment dated 17‑4‑1990 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, in Writ Petition No.146 of 1989). (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑ Arts. 13 & 185(3) ‑‑‑ Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 403 ‑‑‑ Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 447 ‑‑‑ Leave to appeal was granted to consider the ple 13‑3‑1989) and said acquittal remained 'unchallenged till the decision against them (appellants) in the Con6itutional petition (17‑4‑1990) filed by complainant in that behalf. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ S.403 ‑‑‑ Aurefois acquit, plea of ‑‑‑ Retrial of an offence in which a person who having once been tried as accused stands finally acquitted is not permitted ‑‑‑ Judgment by Trial Court having attained finality same accused cannot be retried for the same offence. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ S. 447 ‑‑‑ Trespass ‑‑‑ Parties who were closely related to each other had a land dispute which was settled through respectables in 1956; implementation of such settlement though took a long time but possession of the property was delivered to respondents on 30‑10‑1986 ‑‑‑ Respondents made a complaint for an offence under S. 447, P.P.C. on 17‑11‑1986 stating therein that despite the delivery of possession on 30‑10‑1986 the appellants/accused had committed the offence of trespass on 15‑11‑1986 on the same property ‑‑‑ Complaint in question was enquired into and was found false and was filed as not proved‑‑ Despite the failure of respondents complaint was revived for purpose of review and a fresh inquiry/trial commenced ‑‑‑ Appellants challenged the review/revival of the criminal case as illegal and without jurisdiction ‑‑‑ Court which heard the matter rejected the appellants' plea ‑‑‑ Appellants then filed a revision before the Government which was allowed on 21‑5‑1987, with observation that the possession had already been delivered and there was no sense in re‑opening the same ‑‑‑ Order of the Government was challenged by the respondents in *the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction which upheld the plea of the respondents that original complaint filed for offence under S. 447, P.P.C. had not been properly tried by a proper forum, therefore, same required to be re‑investigated and retried and same was sent back to the Trial Court "for fresh proceedings"‑‑‑Held, parties were wrongly advised to launch and pursue futile criminal proceedings as matter which stood settled by the respectables in 1956, got unsettled by the Law Enforcing Agencies‑‑ Instead of again opening the settled issue which was evidenced by delivery of possession through proper documentation, the proper course would have been to get the demarcation done or redone either through official Agencies or through the elders or respectables which even now could be done as Islamic mode.‑‑[Administration of justice].
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.‑‑This appeal through leave of the Court is directed against the acceptance of Constitutional (Writ) Petition of the respondent's side by the High Court in a criminal matter. Briefly stated the facts are that the parties are closely related to each other. They had a land dispute which was stated to have been settled through respectables in 1956. The implementation of the decision by the respcctables took a long time. Ultimately the implementation of an order, passed by Additional Secretary Home and Tribal Affairs Department of the N.‑W,F.P. dated 31‑7‑1985, took place on 30‑10‑1986 and as stated in the memorandum, prepared in that behalf, the possession of the property was also delivered. The respondents' side made a complaint for an offence under section 447, P.P.C. on 17‑11‑1986 stating therein that despite the delivery of possession on 30‑10‑1986 the appellants/accused side had committed the offence of trespass on, 15‑11 1986 on the same property. The present appeal has arisen' out of this complaint. According to learned counsel for the appellants this complaint was enquired into and was found false and was filed as not proved. Despite the failure of th6 respondent side somehow or the other it was revived for purpose of review and a fresh inquiry/trial commenced. The appellants challenged the review/revival of the criminal case as illegal and without jurisdiction. The Additional Commissioner who heard the matter rejected the appellants' plea against the revival. They then filed a revision petition before the Government which was allowed on 21‑5‑1987 with observation that the possession had already been delivered; that there was no sense in re‑opening the same. The order of the Government was challenged by the respondents' side in the High Court in its Constitutional (Writ) jurisdiction. The High Court upheld the plea raised by the respondents' side that the original complaint filed for offence under section 447, P.P.C. had not been properly tried by a proper forum, therefore, it required to be re‑investigated and" re‑tried. In consequence of the acceptance of the Writ Petition the case was sent back to the trial Court" for fresh proceedings. Leave to appeal was granted for the consideration of the plea that it was a case of autrefois acquit. The basis for this plea was that the appellants' side having been tried in the police case, for the same offence for trespass together with theft (during the said trespass) by a Magistrate First Class (EAC Malakand) they were finally acquitted by the judgment dated 13‑3‑19$9 and this acquittal remained unchallenged till the decision of the writ petition by the High Court on 17‑4‑1990. , We have gone through the F.I.R. which was the‑ basis of the criminal case launched against the appellants. The case was registered under sections "447/427/188/148/149, P.P.C. and section 14 of Islamic Law". The allegation made in the F.I.R. consists of two parts. One, trespass and the other theft of certain articles during the same trespass. The learned counsel for the respondents' side admitted that the land/immovable property is the same which was the subject‑matter of a complaint riled by the respondents' side Out of which the present appeal has arisen. We have also perused the judgment of acquittal in the police case. It