1. ' AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.---I have examined the order of the trial Court. From the contents of the examination-in-chief of the appellant it is an admitted fact that the appellant was occupying government plot and the respondents are railway employees who under the directives of their superiors were required to remove the encroachment and, they in discharge of their duties have demolished the house of the appellant. It is also not denied by the learned counsel for the appellant that the witnesses whom he wants to examine were his relations and no independent person of the locality was cited as witness.
2. ' It was the obligation of the appellant to establish that he was in lawful possession of the premises which was demolished and the articles lying inside the house were unauthorizedly removed by the respondents Nos.1 to 4 with intent to rob.
3. ' From the plain reading of the complaint and the examination-in-chief recorded before the Magistrate, it appear that the ingredients of section 392, P.P.C. Are not attracted and the direct complaint ex facie appears to have been filed to counter the proposed F.I.R. Which the I.O.W.
4. Railway wanted to lodge against the appellant. It is also not in the dispute that the premises was along with the railway track which area cannot be used or utilized for residential purposes.
5. ' For the aforesaid reasons coupled with the reasons stated in the order impugned, this criminal acquittal appeal is dismissed in limine.