JUDGMENT SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.---By means of instant criminal revision petition filed under sections 435/436 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Khariat Hussain and 6 others, petitioners have assailed the vires of order dated 26-5-2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura; whereby learned Court seized with the matter had dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Seeking their acquittal of the charge.
2. Succinctly, facts of the case, required for determination of petition in hand are that Muhammad Ali and Abdul Sattar, complainants/respondents Nos.2 and 3, had filed a complaint under section 3/7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, against the petitioners. After recording preliminary evidence, the learned trial court had summoned the accused/petitioners in terms of order dated 12-12-2010, who also submitted their bail bonds. Thereafter, formal charge was framed to which the accused/petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, an application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Was filed on behalf of the accused/petitioners seeking their acquittal. However, the learned trial court in terms of order dated 26-5-2010 had declined the application, which has been assailed by means of instant criminal revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura is absolutely illegal, arbitrary, superficial and based upon misconception of law and facts; wherein the learned court had kept focus only that its predecessor had formally charged the accused/petitioners. Learned counsel next contended that the complainants are neither lawful owners of the land nor actual lawful possession of the property was with them, as such they had no locus standi to file the complaint. Learned counsel vehemently urged that according to preamble of Illegal Dispossession Act 2005, the complaint could have been entertained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against property grabbers. Learned counsel argued that admittedly regarding the same property civil suit is pending between the parties in which status has also been granted. In this background, learned counsel contended, as there is no possibility of any conviction of the accused/petitioners, further proceedings upon the complaint would be wastage of valuable time of the courts of law and that of the parties, therefore, while setting aside the order of the learned trial Court, the accused/petitioners may be acquitted of the charge.'
4. Contrarily, learned D.P.-G. Assisted by learned counsel for the complainants has opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. It was contended that the complainants were lawful occupier of the property and were dispossessed by the accused/petitioners in an illegal manner. It was further submitted that reasonable evidence is available on the record to suggest that the accused/petitioners are connected with the crime and the learned trial court while dealing each and every aspect of the case has rightly dismissed the application.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced pro and contra and have also gone through the record available on file with the able assistance of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainants/respondents Nos.2 and 3, as well as learned D.P.- G.
6. No doubt the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is a special enactment, which has been promulgated to discourage the land grabbers and to protect the right of owner and the lawful occupant but at the same time the provisions of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Act are in the form of preventive provisions. The section begins with the words "no one shall...". This is a prohibitory mandate and there is no restriction as to the class of persons. I may observe here that through subsection (1) of section 3 of the Act, all persons have been prohibited to commit the offence detailed in this provision. Similar view has been affirmed in the dictates of law of august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Akram and 9 others v. Muhammad Yousaf and another (2009 SCM R 1066). The maintainability of the 'complaint' before the learned trial court is not questionable firstly for the reason that the learned court had adopted all codal formalities before summoning the accused/ petitioners and secondly that prima facie facts and circumstances of the case fully attract the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.
7. Moreover, I am in full league with the observation of the learned trial court that while filing complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, the complainant is only required to prove that he was a lawful occupier of the property when he was allegedly dispossessed. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainants were not owners of the property, in the circumstance, has no weight at all. Perusal of cursory evidence led by the complainants reflects that prima facie there is sufficient material against the petitioners and admittedly the complainants are entitled to be afforded opportunity to prove their plea through leading evidence at trial. So far as contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that civil suit is pending between the parties qua the same land is concerned, suffice it to say that civil suit pertains to civil rights of the parties and the same in any bars initiation of criminal proceedings, if the same are proved.
8. This Court is conscious of the fact that power of court to acquit accused under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised at any stage, however, it can be in those cases where after hearing both sides, the court is satisfied that there is no possibility of the accused being convicted of any offence, which admittedly is not in the instant case.
9. Upshot of my above discussion is that there is no illegality/legal infirmity in the impugned order dated 26-5-2010 inviting interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. The instant petition, therefore, stands dismissed.