P L D 2007 Lahore 104 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 26-7-2006 passed by learned Additional sessions Judge-respondent No.2 by which the learned Additional sessions Judge while dismissing his application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. refused to acquit the petitioner.

2. The facts in brief are that a complaint was filed by Abdul Sattar respondent No.3 against the petitioner Muhammad Nawaz and Ali Muhammad respondent No.4 seeking restoration of possession in terms of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The petitioner along with respondent No.4 filed reply to the said complaint. However, on 1-4-2006 the petitioner moved an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge seeking dismissal of the main complaint and his acquittal on the following grounds: (i) that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under the said Act; (ii) that the complaint having been received in violation of section 193(2), Cr.P.C. could not proceed; and (iii) that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not delegated with the jurisdiction under the said Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the parties proceeded to dismiss the said application vide order dated 26-7-2006 which order has now been assn led through the instant petition. The learned counsel in support of this petition has reiterated the above mentioned grounds whereas, none is sustainable.

2. As regards the first contention of learned counsel that learned Additional Sessions Judge was not the Court of Session is concerned, needles to point out that in terms of sections 7 and 8 of the Criminal Procedure Code the Provincial Government in consultation with the High Court has already declared Tehsil Burewala as Sessions Division, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Tehsil Burewala shall be deemed to be Court of Session and thus competent to try the complaint filed by respondent under section 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. Similarly, the contention of learned counsel that complaint filed by the respondent was entertained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in violation of section 193(2), Cr.P.C. is also not sustainable for the simple reasons that provisions of Cr.P.C. are not strictly applicable to the proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and further the Court constituted under the said Act being Special Court is not bound to follow the procedure as laid down in section 190, Cr.P.C. as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and others v. Major (Retd.) Muhammad Azam and another 1994 SCMR 2177 and by this Court in the case reported in 2005 PCr.LJ

768. So far as last contention of learned counsel that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not delegated the jurisdiction under the said Act is concerned, the same too has no legal force for the reason that as held above a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was to be filed and tried by Court of Session and since Tehsil Kabirwala is notified Sessions Division, thus the learned Additional Sessions Judge working at Tehsil Burewala is also Court of Session as such complaint was rightly filed, entertained and being heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala.

3. The upshot of above discussion is that the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge neither suffers from any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect and thus this writ petition is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-582/L Petition dismissed.