1. After hearing the learned counsel it appears that the grievance of the appellant is that his watchman, appointed by him 40 years before was not allowing the appellant to enter into the plot Bearing No, 13, Sheet No, 17, Model Colony, Karachi. On complaint, FIR was registered under Section 448 and 454/34 PPC. The matter was proceeded by Magistrate and the accused was acquitted under Section 249-A Cr.P.C. with the observation that there was no tress pass and the law applied in the FIR was not applicable, as admittedly there was no tress pass and withholding the possession of the plot was with the permission of the appellant.
2. I have perused the order of the Magistrate and find that reasons given in Paragraphs 4 and 5 are proper. Learned State Counsel has also stated that the instant appeal is not maintainable and the order of the Magistrate is proper. She further submits that the appellant has even not filed any document to show the ownership.
3. Keeping in view that appellant himself has parted of his possession about 40 years back to the alleged accused, therefore, there is no tress pass and the appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs,2000/- to be deposited with the clinic of this Court, within seven days. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.