Summary: Background:This case originates from a criminal revision petition under section 439 of the Cr.P.C against an order dated 28.09.2023 by the Additional Sessions Judge-II/Ilaqa Qazi, Swat. The order in question appointed a local commission for spot inspection concerning illegal construction on petitioner Zafar Khan's land in Malam Jabba, Swat, and directed the complainant to bear the associated costs. The complainant had filed a complaint under Sections 3 & 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, against Saddam Hussain and others for illegal construction on his land, which led to a trial where formal charges were framed against the accused.-----Issues:The key issue for determination was the legality and appropriateness of appointing a local commission for spot inspection under section 539-B of the Cr.P.C by the trial court. The contention revolved around whether such a delegation of inspection to a local commission, including a Tehsildar and an Advocate, was permissible under the Criminal Procedure Code and whether it constituted an irregularity or illegality in the judicial process.-----Holding/Reasoning:Justice Muhammad Naeem Anwar allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order and directing the trial court to decide the case based on the evidence already on record. The judgment elucidated several crucial points:Non-delegable Judicial Powers: The court highlighted that the power for local inspection vested in Judges or Magistrates under section 539-B Cr.P.C cannot be delegated to others, including subordinate judicial officers or local commissions. Such inspections are meant to aid the judge or magistrate in appreciating evidence better and are to be conducted by the presiding officer themselves.Jurisprudential Precedents: Citing multiple precedents, including "Tirkak vs. Nanale" (AIR 1927 All, 350), "Bazat Ahmed Sowdagar vs. Nur Muhammad" (PLD 1963 Dhaka 852), and notably "Asfandyar and another vs. Kamran and another" (2016 SCMR 2084) from the Supreme Court, the judgment emphasized that local inspection is an exclusive domain of the trial court and cannot substitute for evidence nor assume the role of an investigation.Prosecutorial Burden of Proof: The court reiterated the principle that in criminal trials, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Any failure in the prosecution's case benefits the accused, who is not obligated to prove innocence.---Citations/Precedents:Tirkak vs. Nanale (AIR 1927 All, 350): Highlighted the need for a judge to allow cross-examination on points derived from local inspection to avoid material irregularity that could vitiate the trial.Bazat Ahmed Sowdagar vs. Nur Muhammad (PLD 1963 Dhaka 852): Emphasized that local inspection is permitted for the purpose of properly appreciating evidence in the case and cannot replace evidence itself.Abdul Rashid vs. The State and others (1999 YLR 1298): Stressed that a judge or magistrate may inspect the crime scene, but there's no provision in the Cr.P.C for appointing a commissioner for local inspection.Asfandyar and another vs. Kamran and another (2016 SCMR 2084): Asserted that the trial judge cannot delegate the power of local inspection under section 539-B, Cr.P.C to any other individual or entity, emphasizing the exclusivity of this domain to the trial court.Wazir Mohammad vs. The State (1992 SCMR 1234) and Hamoon alias Shamma vs. The State (1995 SCMR 1377): Both cases reinforced the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused is not obliged to prove innocence.Naveed Asghar and 2 others vs. The State (PLD 2021 SC 600): Reiterated the prosecution's duty to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and any failure in the prosecution's case benefits the accused.----Quote:''Section 539-B of Criminal Procedure Code 1898Power under section 539-B, Cr.P.C. could not be a substitute for collection of evidence nor the Court could assume the status of an investigating officer. Section 539-B, Cr.P.C. envisages that in case spot inspection is deemed necessary, the trial Court shall without unnecessary delay record a memorandum of any relevant facts observed at such inspection. This object cannot be achieved through appointment of a local commission because the report submitted by a local Commission could not be equated with the memorandum mentioned in section 539-B (1), Cr.P.C.''

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (Cr.P.C.) – Sections 265-D, 249-A, and 265-K – Dismissal of Application: ---- Limited scope for acquittal at intermediary stages The acquittal of an accused under Sections 249-A and 265-K, Cr.P.C. should only be granted if there is no probability of conviction based on the evidence. Courts must exercise extreme caution before granting such acquittals, especially in cases where substantial material evidence exists. (b) Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 – Applicability to Co-Owners: ---- Act not applicable to disputes between co-owners and co-sharers The Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 does not apply in cases where parties are co-owners or co-sharers in the disputed property. Such disputes fall within the purview of civil litigation. (c) Misuse of Legal Proceedings – Multiple Revision Petitions: ---- Filing successive revision petitions on the same grounds is impermissible The filing of successive revision petitions on identical grounds amounts to an abuse of the process of law, especially where earlier petitions have been dismissed. Such actions indicate a deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings. (d) Pending Civil Litigation and Criminal Proceedings: ---- Parallel proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act and civil suits Where civil litigation regarding ownership and possession is pending, the initiation of criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 may be considered redundant. Courts must ensure that criminal law is not used to harass the opposing party. (e) Police Reports and Inquiry Findings: ---- Evidentiary value of police reports in determining illegal dispossession Findings of police inquiries, particularly when corroborated by higher authorities, hold evidentiary value in determining whether the accused engaged in illegal dispossession. Contradictory reports, however, must be scrutinized to avoid miscarriage of justice. (f) Supreme Court Jurisprudence on Section 249-A and 265-K, Cr.P.C: ---- Presumption against acquittal without full trial Supreme Court rulings emphasize that acquittals under Sections 249-A and 265-K should not disrupt the normal course of trial unless there is a clear absence of evidence or probability of conviction. Courts are directed to proceed with full trials to ensure justice. ----Disposition: The criminal revision petition was dismissed for lack of merit. The trial court was directed to conclude the trial within three months and decide the matter expeditiously. Parties were ordered to appear before the trial court by 19.03.2024.

Summary: Background:In the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, a common order was issued to address two Criminal Revision Applications, No. 219 of 2021 and No. 262 of 2022. These applications were related to disputes over property ownership and possession involving family members. The dispute primarily concerned the legal standing of a gift deed and subsequent possession of a property originally owned by Iftikhar, now deceased. After Iftikhar's death, his brother Muhammad Aijaz (respondent No.1), who was gifted the property, faced opposition from another brother, Niaz Ahmed (applicant No.1), and his wife (applicant No.2).-----Issues:Whether the proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 were applicable to a family dispute involving property claimed as inherited.Whether the gift deed favoring Muhammad Aijaz was valid and the subsequent actions taken under it were lawful.Whether the applicants were wrongfully dispossessing Muhammad Aijaz, justifying the enforcement of the Illegal Dispossession Act.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court dismissed the Criminal Revision Applications, upholding the decisions made by the lower court. The court found that the proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act were correctly applied despite the familial relationship among the parties. It was emphasized that the Act could be invoked against anyone unlawfully dispossessing or attempting to grab property, not just against external land grabbers or "Qabza Mafia." The court supported the legitimacy of the gift deed granted to Muhammad Aijaz, noting the failure of the applicants to pursue civil remedies effectively, including a dismissed suit challenging the deed.----Citations/Precedents:Mumtaz Hussain vs. Dr. Nasir Khan and others [2010 S C M R 1254]: Discussed the Illegal Dispossession Act?s scope and enforcement.Muhammad Akram and 9 others vs. Muhammad Yousuf and another [2009 SCMR 1066]: Emphasized the mandatory and salutary provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act.Mst. Gulshan Bibi and others v. Muhammad Sadiq and others [PLD 2016 SC 769]: Established that the Illegal Dispossession Act applies universally to any form of unlawful dispossession, not restricted to land mafia.Shaikh Muhammad Naseem v. Mst. Farida Gul [2016 SCMR 1931]: Asserted that criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act can proceed independently of any civil litigation concerning the same property.

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005:—-Ss. 3, 4 & 5—Illegal dispossession—Appeal against acquittal—Improper appreciation of evidence—Scope—Where the trial court fails to adequately consider material evidence and relevant documents presented by the complainant, including property ownership documents and government records, acquittal findings cannot be sustained—Acquittal mainly based on the absence of specific date/time of dispossession and general admission regarding long-standing possession by accused is insufficient in law to discard title documents and oral evidence—Trial court’s failure to discuss official witness testimony and key documentary exhibits amounts to misreading and non-reading of evidence—Held, the trial court did not appreciate the material evidence, and findings were not based on sound judicial reasoning.Disposition: Impugned judgment set aside; case remanded for fresh decision on merits after permitting both parties to produce additional evidence.Cited Case: Gulshan Bibi v. Muhammad Sadiq (PLD 2016 SC 769)(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898):—-S. 417(2-A)—Appeal against acquittal—Principles—Presumption of innocence—Scope—Although an acquitted accused enjoys double presumption of innocence, such benefit is subject to proper judicial application of mind by the trial court—Acquittal must be based on full appreciation of evidence and reasoned analysis—Where trial court omits discussion of key exhibits and witness testimony, presumption of correctness of its findings is weakened.(c) Evidence:—-Appreciation of evidence—Ownership documents—Weight—Permanent transfer orders (PTO), revenue entries (Deh Form-II), and death certificates of the original owner are material and relevant evidence to establish title and unauthorized dispossession—Trial court must analyze such documents before granting acquittal in possession-related disputes under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.----Disposition:Appeal allowed. Acquittal set aside. Case remanded to trial court (5th Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana) for fresh adjudication on merits after allowing further evidence and cross-examination.

Summary: The contoversy between co-owners upon un-partitioned land could not be decided under Illegal Dispossession Act.

Summary: Background: The appellant, challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Matta, Swat, which convicted him under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. He was sentenced to three years of simple imprisonment and fined Rs. 50,000. In default of payment, he was to undergo an additional two months of simple imprisonment. Additionally, he was ordered to pay Rs. 300,000 in compensation to the complainant. The local authorities were directed to restore possession of the disputed property to the complainant. The co-accused, Mian Said Tahir, was declared a proclaimed offender. Issues: 1- Whether the appellant was rightly convicted under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. 2- Whether the complainant's absence from the country justified the appellant's occupation of the disputed property. 3- Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction and sentencing of the appellant. 4- Whether the trial court followed the proper procedure under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court, upon reviewing the appeal, noted that the appellant was convicted based on the evidence that he, along with the co-accused, had illegally occupied the disputed property while the complainant was settled in Saudi Arabia. The complainant had purchased the property in 2005 and was in possession until the accused took advantage of his absence to occupy it illegally. The trial court had conducted a thorough examination of the evidence, including the statements of five prosecution witnesses. The appellant was confronted with these statements, and the trial court found the allegations against him credible. Consequently, the appellant was convicted and sentenced appropriately. The court reiterated the procedures under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, emphasizing that the trial court can restore possession to the complainant and punish the illegal occupier. The trial court had followed these procedures, including issuing the necessary orders for restitution of the property. After considering the arguments from both parties and the evidence presented, the court upheld the conviction and sentencing of the appellant. The court found that the trial court had acted within its jurisdiction and followed the proper legal framework. -----Citations/Precedents: Yasir Nawaz and others v. Higher Education Commission and others (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 745) Muhammad Ilyas v. Bahauddin Zakariya University (2005 SCMR 961) Noor Muhammad Khan Marwat v. Vice-Chancellor (PLD 2001 SC 219) Maharashtra State Board v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others (AIR 1984 SC 1543) Fakheryar Khan v. Agriculture University, Peshawar (PLD 2016 Peshawar 266) Fatima Nadeem v. Province of the Punjab and others (2022 MLD 1922) Tariq Mahmood v. Vice-Chancellor, University of the Punjab, Lahore and another (2022 MLD 155)

Summary: The pending adjudication of the civil suit is something else from the commission of the offence, whichwas tried within the purview of sections 3 & 8 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. Thus, the civil litigations can, in no way, be considered as a hurdle for the complainants/ respondents in the matter in hand. The preamble of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 explicitly stipulates its object i.e., to protect the lawful owners and occupiers against illegal or forcible dispossession from their immovable property and the purpose of the Act is to provide a forum for quick investigation and trial of the offence under the Act of 2005. It is the primary duty of the State and the Courts to protect the right of occupants/ owners of the property. Likewise, the Act of 2005 does not debar a person from initiating the proceedings under the Act on the ground that some of the encroachers or unlawful occupiers in respect of any portion of the land have initiated some other legal proceedings either criminal or civil. More-so, any act which entitles civil liability under civil law as well as criminal penalty under the criminal law such as the Act of 2005, a person against whom the proceedings were initiated cannot take a plea that both the remedies cannot be availed at the same time. It was the duty of the respondents/ complainants to establish that they were occupants of the property and the appellants/accused occupied possession thereof without any lawful authority and dispossessed them illegally other than due course of law. The description of the property was mentioned in the complaint and it is an admitted aspect rather the learned counsel for the appellants himself referred to Ex.CW1/5, which was a sketch/map of the property prepared by the learned local commission in civil suit of 1982. There are two conditions for invoking the provisions of section 3 of the Act of 2005; firstly, the act of dispossession, grab, control or occupy without lawful authority and secondly intention to dispossess, grab, control or occupy the property from actual owner. In accordance with the provisions of section 3 of the Act of 2005 in order to constitute an offence under this Act, the complainant must disclose the existence of both i.e., unlawful act (actus reus) and criminal intent (mens rea). The act of the appellants by dispossessing the respondents/ complainants who were occupants of the property with a categoric stance that on a particular date, they were illegally dispossessed by the appellants has been proved not only through oral but also through documentary evidence and the order has been maintained upto the Supreme Court.

Summary: The case revolves around Haji Muhammad Yunis and his wife, Mst. Mumtaz Akhtar, who initially lived in South Africa and later settled in the United Kingdom. The couple purchased a house in Abbottabad, Pakistan, on a 4-kanal and 7-marla land. The property was bought from Mst. Suriyya Ashraf in 1989. After Mst. Ashraf's demise, her legal heirs, including Mst. Farukh Sultan and Syed Faisal Shah, contested the ownership of the property. Mst. Farukh Sultan, one of the legal heirs of Mst. Suriyya Ashraf, filed a suit seeking a declaration that she and her siblings were the co-owners of the property. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, but Mst. Sultan appealed the decision. Eventually, the High Court reversed the previous judgments, decreeing in favor of Mst. Sultan. Civil Appeals No. 152 and 153 of 2019 were filed by the appellants as a result. In parallel to the civil appeals, Haji Muhammad Yunis and Mst. Mumtaz Akhtar filed a complaint against Syed Faisal Shah under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005, accusing him of illegally occupying the property. The trial court temporarily halted the proceedings until the civil suit was decided. After the civil suit's conclusion, the trial court resumed the proceedings, leading to a series of legal battles between the parties. The High Court eventually dismissed the appellants' complaint, which prompted them to file Civil Petition No. 472 of 2019. During the case, the appellants raised concerns regarding the conduct of Syed Faisal Shah. They accused him of introducing a fictitious attorney, misrepresenting the death of Haji Muhammad Yunis, and filing a written statement on behalf of the appellants through the fictitious attorney. Additionally, it was alleged that Shah had obtained a sale mutation for half of the property through the same fabricated attorney. These claims were substantiated when the appellants appeared before the trial court to expose the fraud. The Supreme Court meticulously evaluated the facts presented and the arguments put forth by all parties involved. They considered the authenticity of the sale mutation, the legal rights of the legal heirs, and the conduct of Syed Faisal Shah. The court notes that during the trial proceedings, the appellants (Haji Muhammad Yunis and Mst. Mumtaz Akhtar) appeared in person and exposed the fraud committed by Syed Faisal Shah regarding the fictitious attorney and the misrepresentation of the death. However, despite this exposure, Syed Faisal Shah proceeded with obtaining half of the suit property through the fictitious attorney.The court also addresses the issue of limitation, stating that the suit filed by Mst. Farukh Sultan (respondent No.1/plaintiff) was time-barred, as it was filed beyond the prescribed period. The court finds that Mst. Farukh Sultan failed to discharge the initial burden of rebutting the legal presumptions of regularity and truth attached to the sale mutation and the revenue entries, which favored the appellants.The High Court's judgment, which favored Syed Faisal Shah, is reversed by the appellate court, restoring the concurrent judgments of the trial court and appellate court.Finally, the judgment calls for affirmative actions to address the grievances of overseas Pakistanis in pursuing their legal rights in courts, as they face disadvantages due to their absence from the country.The court also examined the judgments of the trial court and the appellate court, which were reversed by the High Court. The supreme court after thorough analysis, allowed the appeal and restored the judgement by the trial court.

Summary: The case revolves around Haji Muhammad Yunis and his wife, Mst. Mumtaz Akhtar, who initially lived in South Africa and later settled in the United Kingdom. The couple purchased a house in Abbottabad, Pakistan, on a 4-kanal and 7-marla land. The property was bought from Mst. Suriyya Ashraf in 1989. After Mst. Ashraf's demise, her legal heirs, including Mst. Farukh Sultan and Syed Faisal Shah, contested the ownership of the property. Mst. Farukh Sultan, one of the legal heirs of Mst. Suriyya Ashraf, filed a suit seeking a declaration that she and her siblings were the co-owners of the property. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, but Mst. Sultan appealed the decision. Eventually, the High Court reversed the previous judgments, decreeing in favor of Mst. Sultan. Civil Appeals No. 152 and 153 of 2019 were filed by the appellants as a result. In parallel to the civil appeals, Haji Muhammad Yunis and Mst. Mumtaz Akhtar filed a complaint against Syed Faisal Shah under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005, accusing him of illegally occupying the property. The trial court temporarily halted the proceedings until the civil suit was decided. After the civil suit's conclusion, the trial court resumed the proceedings, leading to a series of legal battles between the parties. The High Court eventually dismissed the appellants' complaint, which prompted them to file Civil Petition No. 472 of 2019. During the case, the appellants raised concerns regarding the conduct of Syed Faisal Shah. They accused him of introducing a fictitious attorney, misrepresenting the death of Haji Muhammad Yunis, and filing a written statement on behalf of the appellants through the fictitious attorney. Additionally, it was alleged that Shah had obtained a sale mutation for half of the property through the same fabricated attorney. These claims were substantiated when the appellants appeared before the trial court to expose the fraud. The Supreme Court meticulously evaluated the facts presented and the arguments put forth by all parties involved. They considered the authenticity of the sale mutation, the legal rights of the legal heirs, and the conduct of Syed Faisal Shah. The court notes that during the trial proceedings, the appellants (Haji Muhammad Yunis and Mst. Mumtaz Akhtar) appeared in person and exposed the fraud committed by Syed Faisal Shah regarding the fictitious attorney and the misrepresentation of the death. However, despite this exposure, Syed Faisal Shah proceeded with obtaining half of the suit property through the fictitious attorney.The court also addresses the issue of limitation, stating that the suit filed by Mst. Farukh Sultan (respondent No.1/plaintiff) was time-barred, as it was filed beyond the prescribed period. The court finds that Mst. Farukh Sultan failed to discharge the initial burden of rebutting the legal presumptions of regularity and truth attached to the sale mutation and the revenue entries, which favored the appellants.The High Court's judgment, which favored Syed Faisal Shah, is reversed by the appellate court, restoring the concurrent judgments of the trial court and appellate court.Finally, the judgment calls for affirmative actions to address the grievances of overseas Pakistanis in pursuing their legal rights in courts, as they face disadvantages due to their absence from the country.The court also examined the judgments of the trial court and the appellate court, which were reversed by the High Court. The supreme court after thorough analysis, allowed the appeal and restored the judgement by the trial court.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a criminal revision challenging the order dated 03.02.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, D.I. Khan, which dismissed his complaint under Sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The petitioner claimed ownership and possession of certain property located in District D.I. Khan. He alleged that the respondents forcibly dispossessed him from the property on 22.11.2015, leading him to file a complaint in the Sessions Court. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner provided sufficient details to establish his lawful possession of the property and the manner of dispossession under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. -----2- Whether the respondents' possession was unlawful, and whether the petitioner could prove that the respondents acted with the intent to dispossess him. -----3- Whether the amendment to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Tenancy Act, 2014, regarding succession of tenancy, affected the respondents’ right to the property. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the petitioner’s claim, holding that he failed to establish the necessary details of his possession and dispossession. The complaint did not provide specific dates or sufficient evidence to show that the petitioner regained possession after the death of tenants. The court also noted that the respondents had become co-owners through a legal mutation, and thus their possession could not be deemed unlawful. Furthermore, the court referenced the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Tenancy Act, 2014, which amended the rules of succession for non-occupancy tenancies, reinforcing the respondents' position. -----Citations/Precedents: Mumtaz Hussain v. Dr. Nasir Khan and others (2010 SCMR 1254) Dr. Babar Yarooq Sheikh v. Hafeez and others (2020 PLD Sindh 1274) Waqar Ali and others v. State and others (PLD 2011 SC 181)