1. ' AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---Through this Criminal Acquittal Appeal appellant Pervaiz Iqbal Choudhry has challenged the order dated 17-7-2012 passed by learned Yd.' Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi Central in Criminal Petition No,224 of 2011 whereby respondent/accused has been acquitted from the charge under sections 3/4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.
2. ' Precisely the facts of the case are that complainant lodged complaint under section 3/4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 against respondents No,1 to 3 stating therein the he is owner and builder of the project, Gulberg Square situated at Plot No,ST-4/C, Block 16, F.B. Area, Karachi consisting of 128 flats and 24 shops out of which he sold a number of flats except some flats and shops which were under his own use including Flat No,G-1, situated at First Floor where complainant got established his office which was looked after by his then Manager namely Qamardin and after his death complainant himself was looking after all the affairs of the building. The said flat remained lying vacant for about 3 years and in the month of July, 2009 the General Secretary of the Welfare Association informed him through telephone that one police constable namely Irshad Ali son of Maqsood Ali had illegally occupied the flat in question. At the relevant time complainant was busy at Lahore and after returning back from Lahore, he moved application to the General Secretary of the Association and so also to the Nazim Union Council for restoration of the possession of the flat in question but in vain. He then moved application to the concerned police station but no action was taken, hence he filed complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act. The learned trial Court after admitting the complaint, proceeded with the matter and recorded evidence of complainant side. Thereafter statement of accused was recorded and the accused also examined himself under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused vide impugned order, hense this Criminal Acquittal Appeal.
3. ' Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court has erred on facts and in law while passing the acquittal order; that the trial Court was not justified in holding that it has no jurisdiction to give finding with regard to authenticity of documents in such type of complaints; that the suit filed by father of respondent No,3 in respect of the flat in question was dismissed.
4. According to him, the complainant had proved his case through evidence and ownership documents, as such the impugned order has been passed in violation of the law and norms of justice. He prayed for setting aside of the acquittal order. In support of his case he relied upon the case reported in PLD 2011 Karachi 624.
5. ' Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the order passed by the trial Court is just and proper and sound reasons have been assigned for passing the order; that the father of respondent No,3 had purchased the said flat and a sale agreement was e4ecuted between the parties, furthermore electricity and gas connection of the flat in question is in his name which establishes his ownership upon the flat. He prayed for maintaining the acquittal order passed by the trial Court.
6. ' Learned A.P.G. Also supported the impugned judgment and contended that the order has been passed according to legal norms and cogent reasons have been given for acquittal of the accused.
7. ' I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
8. The case of the complainant is that he is owner of the flat in question and the respondents/accused illegally occupied the said flat in July, 2009, whereas the stand taken by the respondents is that father of respondent No,3 namely Niaz Muhammad had purchased the said flat from the complainant in the year 1980 vide sale agreement and its possession was handed over to him in 1988. The said Niaz Muhammad then rented out the said flat to different tenants. He also got sui gas and electricity connection in respect of the flat in question installed in his name and the monthly bills were being issued in his name. During the course of his evidence, respondent No, 3 produced Sale Agreement and A Utility Bills issued in the name of Niaz Muhammad in support of his case. He also produced tenancy agreement executed between his father Niaz Muhammad and tenant Syed Talat Hussain. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that sale agreement does not confer any title upon the respondent in respect of flat in question. However, he could not furnish plausible explanation as to how the electricity and gas connections of the flat in question were installed in favour father of respondent No,3, nor he could satisfy the court as to why he did not take any steps for getting the utility connection in the name of Niaz Muhammad cancelled. Although during the course of arguments of this appeal he has produced an application purported to have moved by the complainant to KESC authorities but the said application was not produced in evidence. Even otherwise bare perusal of the said application reveals that the same was received by KESC authorities on 4-11-2011 i.e, after the filing of complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act which was moved on 21-3-2011, as such it carries no weight. Besides, he also admitted in cross- examination, "I never filed any application or to approach the KESC authority for changing the B name of Niaz Muhammad from electricity bill.
9. ' As stated above, the respondent in his evidence had produced Tenancy Agreement alleged to have been executed between Niaz Mohammad and Syed Talat Hussain as Exh.6/B but not a single word was put by complainant's counsel in cross examination of the respondent suggesting that the said tenancy agreement is a fake and forged document. It is settled law that if a document produced in evidence is not challenged/rebutted, it amounts to admitting the said documents to be genuine. It establishes that, in fact, Niaz Muhammad had rented out the flat in question to the said Syed Talat Hussain, then what prevented the complainant to take legal steps for evicting him from the flat in question at the relevant time.
10. ' There is no cavil to the proposition laid down in the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant i.e, PLD 2011 Karachi 624 but the same is distinguishable as in the cited case only a revision application was decided and not Criminal Acquittal Appeal as is in the instant case.
11. Needless to emphasize that obvious approach for dealing with the appeal against the acquittal would be different and distinguishable from that of the appeal against conviction because in the former case presumption of double innocence of the accused is attached to the order F of acquittal. It is well settled that the order of acquittal can only be I interfered with if the same, on the face of it appears to be perverse, arbitrary, illegal, wholly illogical or unreasonable or in case the reasons assigned by the trial Court for acquittal are speculative and of artificial nature or the findings are based on no evidence.
12. ' The upshot of above discussion is that the Criminal Acquittal in limine.