' GHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, J.---This Criminal Acquittal Appeal under section 417(2), Cr.P.C. Has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 31st March, 2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II Quetta, whereby the complainant under sections 3 and 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 filed by the appellant has been dismissed and the accused/respondent No,1 has been acquitted of the charge.
2. Briefly, the appellant filed a complaint under sections 3, 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 against the respondent No,
1. In the said complaint, the appellant claimed to be recorded owner of land bearing Mutation No,2735, Khasra Nos.3834, 3930, 1185, 1044 and 1045, measuring 791 sq. Ft.
Situated in Mohal and Mouza Ward No,57, Tappa Urban Tehsil City, District Quetta, which he had purchased from one Malik Muhammad Hashim son of Haji Ghulam Sarwar in the year 1997.
According to the complainant/appellant he was in possession of the same since the time of its purchase. However, a week back when he went to site of the plot he found that the respondent No,1 is in its illegal occupation.
3. After filing of complaint the learned trial Court sent for a report from SHO Police Station, Pashtoonabad, Quetta. After getting report from respondent No,2, respondent No,1 was summoned and on his appearance charge was framed on 20th July, 2009 to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial of the case.
4. To prove his case the complainant produced as many as two witnesses namely Allauddin (P.W.1) and Haji Abdul Baqi (P.W.2). After recording the statement of complainant, prosecution side was closed and statement of respondent No,1 was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The respondent No, 1 produced D.W. Noor Muhammad in his defence.
5. The learned trial Court after assessing the entire evidence, on corning to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove its case against the respondent No,1 and acquitted the accused/respondent No,1 vide order dated 31st March, 2012, hence this appeal.
6. Mr. Behlol Khan Kasi, learned counsel for the appellant/ complainant submitted that the learned trial Court has misread the evidence of complainant' witnesses and wrongly acquitted the accused/respondent No,1 from the charge. He further submitted that the learned trial Court has not provided opportunity to implead the Noor Muhammad paternal uncle of the Attaullah (respondent No,1) as respondent.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and have gone through the record, perusal of the record reveals that the dispute between the parties is purely of a civil nature and accused/respondent No,1 is not in occupation or possession of the plot in question, therefore, no question of his dispossession or ejectment or ouster from the plot would rise. The record further shows that paka house is constructed on the plot in question and is in occupation of one Noor Muhammad. He is residing in the said house for the last fifteen years, who is not party in the complaint, which is purely a civil nature and the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act are not applicable in this case. The learned trial Court has advanced valid and cogent reasons in passing of the acquittal of the accused/respondent No,1 and we see no reason to disturb the same and the learned trial Court was justified in acquitting the respondent No,1 therefore, the impugned order call for no interference.
8. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed and the impugned order dated 31st March, 2012 passed by.
Additional Sessions Judge-II is maintained accordingly.