P (PLP)
GHULAM HAIDAR-Plaintiff Versus CROWN-Respondent
| Citation | P (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Abdul Aziz, C. J. |
| Parties | GHULAM HAIDAR-Plaintiff Versus CROWN-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Abdul Aziz, C. J..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P (PLP) (GHULAM HAIDAR-Plaintiff Versus CROWN-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 447-Concurrent findings of lower Courts. as to possession of complainant should not be disturbed-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439 The concurrent findings of the Courts below on the question of possession-need not be disturbed.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Revision Petition No. 80 of 1950, decided on 28th April, 1951, against the order of Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan, dated 10th June, 1950. Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 447-Concurrent findings of lower Courts. as to possession of complainant should not be disturbed-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439 The concurrent findings of the Courts below on the question of possession-need not be disturbed. ORDER.-There was a complaint by Mst. Gul Khatoon against Ghulam Haidar and others under section 447, read with section. 147 Pakistan Penal Code, on the allegation that Ghulam Haidar in the company of the other persons took unlawful possession of the land in her possession and sunk a well in a part of it and enclosed the other which was under her cultivation. It was contended by the opposite party that the complaint was wrong as the complainant had no right or interest, in the property in dispute. The trial Magistrate held that the land in dispute was in the posses sion of the complainant and holding Ghulam Haidar, Wasaya an Lal guilty under section 447 Pakistan Penal Code sentenced each of them to a fine of Rs. 56 and in default of payment of fine to 2 months rigorous imprisonment. The others were let off. The three convicts went before the learned Sessions Judge Rahimyar Khan in revision and failed. This is a second revision before this Court. The respondent is absent to-day. After going into the entire- record I had treated the examination of the Patwari necessary to elucidate certain facts. Patwari did not appear and the petitioner produced a copy of Jamabandi for the year 1921-22 in which one Karim Bakhsh is recorded in possession of Khasra No. 1679. The petitioner, therefore, put up a position to-day which he never did before and alleged that he is the heir of Karim Bakhsh and as such is a co- owner in the abadi of that village. He, however, had admitted that his name does not appear as a successor of Karim Bakhsh in this land though the death of Karim Bakhsh took place in the year 1919. This position of the petitioner clarify the doubt and it supports the evidence of the complainant that the posses sion of the property was with her. The contradictory position adopted by the petitioner goes definitely against him. In these circumstances the concurrent findings, of the Court below on the question of possession need not be disturbed. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. The petitioners if they are so advised can establish their title in the land in dispute by a civil suit. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.