HAFIZ SHAHID NADEEM KAHLOON, J.---Through this petition, the petitioners have made the following prayer:- "Praying that while accepting this petition, impugned judgment dated 28.01.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Talagang be set-aside and remand the case to learned trial Court for its decision afresh on merits after recording the evidence of the parties.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a complaint under sections 3(1)(2), 7 and 8 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 against the private respondents. On 18.10.2011 after recording the cursory statements of the petitioners, the respondents were summoned to face trial. During the trial respondents filed an application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C., which was accepted and learned Addl: Sessions Judge vide order dated 28.01.2015 acquitted the respondents and complaint of present petitioners was dismissed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners produced the witnesses before the learned trial Court for recording their cursory statements and proceedings thereof are still pending when the respondents-accused, filed an application for their acquittal, which was accepted and respondents have been acquitted of the charge vide impugned order dated 28.01.2015, which is based on surmises and conjectures and there is no contradiction in the statements of the prosecution witnesses; that the respondents-accused have forcibly took the possession of the suit property belonging to the petitioners, therefore, they are liable to be convicted and punished under section 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act as they have no concern with the disputed property measuring 75-kanals and 9-marlas and Fard Jamabandi produced by the petitioners before the trial Court was not observed. The requisite document clearly indicates that the petitioners are lawful owners in possession of the suit property, but this fact has not been appreciated by the trial Court. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and same is liable to he set aside and case be remanded to trial Court to decide afresh after recording whole evidence of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon "Sarfraz Ahmed v. Mst. Naheed" (2014 PCr.LJ 1659).
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the available record.
5. It has been observed by this Court that civil suit regarding the property in-question remained pending before the Civil Court Talagang and was decided. The appeal thereof was also disposed of by the learned Addl: District Judge Talangang vide order dated 14.10.2014, whereby the Assistant Commissioner concerned was directed to demarcate the suit land. Prima facie, the dispute between the parties is of civil nature and allegedly the respondents have not taken the possession of the land of the complainant illegally and forcibly and as such the complaint was based on mala fide and false facts. According to learned counsel, the petitioners are owners of land measuring 75-kanals and 9-marlas situated at village Naka Kahoot and respondents have taken the said land into their possession illegally and forcibly as they belong to "Qabza Group and Mafia", but the respondents do not belong to gang of "land Mafia" and as such the petitioners have failed to produce any documentary proof in this regard.
6. It is an admitted fact that illegal dispossession from the property is not uncommon or unusual but what is most rare and infrequent is a mistaken or misguided dispossession of some existing laws by a new law from a field that stands legitimately occupied by the existing laws. Interestingly the case in hand throws up exactly such an odd, curious and bizarre situation. In order to appreciate the evidence on record after enactment of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, I have noticed that although this Act was restricted in its scope and applicability to illegal dispossession from immovable properties only by a particular class of persons, who could qualify as property grabbers/Qabza Groups/land mafia yet the said Act is now being invoked and utilized by all kinds of aggrieved persons in all kinds of cases of dispossession from immovable properties even by individuals who have no credentials or antecedents of being property grabbers or being members of a Qabza Group or land mafia. Such abuse and wrong utilization of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 has been found by me to be completely nugatory to its contents as well as objectives. It has been noticed by this Court that through a mistaken or deliberate misuse of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 the legal remedies already occupying the field against run of the mill and ordinary dispossession from immovable properties have been dispossessed of the field and that surely was not the intent or spirit of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.
7. The short title of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 itself makes it quite clear that the said Act is "an Act to curb the activities of the property grabbers" and the Preamble to the said Act further clarifies this position by proclaiming in no uncertain terms that "Whereas it is expedient to protect the lawful owners and occupiers of immovable properties from their illegal or forcible dispossession there from by the property grabbers". Although the term "property grabbers" has not been defined in the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 yet the intention of the legislature in this respect is quite evident from the Working Paper prepared by the Federal Ministry of Law, Justice and Human Rights and submitted before the Parliament with the draft or the proposed legislation as well as rights and with the draft or the proposed legislation as well as from the parliamentary debates on the proposed legislation. Both such sources arc generally recognized as valid and useful sources which may be utilized by a Court of law for the purpose of interpreting a piece of legislation by appreciating the spirit in which it was introduced, passed and enacted and for understanding the mischief which was sought to be suppressed.
8. In this regard, I would like to take guide line in case law reported as "Habib Ahmad v. Abdul Manan" (2012 SCM R 1533) in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed as under:- "The question determinable before us is as to whether the facts and circumstances of the instant case do constitute the offence punishable under section 3(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005? The aforesaid provision of law having direct relevance in the instant case is reproduced below:-
3. "Prevention of illegal possession of property, etc. (1) No one shall enter into or upon any property to dispossess, grab, control or occupy it without having any lawful authority to do so with the intention to dispossess, grab, control or occupy the property from owner or occupier of such property.
(2) whoever contravenes the provisions of the subsection (1) shall, without prejudice to any punishment to which he may be liable under any other law for the time being in force, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years and with fine and the victim of the offence shall also be compensated in accordance with the provisions of section 544-A of the Code".
9. Now while discussion the evidence produced by the parties before the learned trial Court, I find that respondents-accused do not belong to land Mafia, Qabza Group or property grabbers.
10. Even otherwise the presumption of double innocence is available to an acquitted accused. It is well settled principle of criminal administration of justice that when an accused is acquitted of the charge, he enjoys double presumption of innocence in acquittal appeal under section 417, Cr.P.C.
Are obliged to be very careful in dislodging such presumption. Undoubtly, two views are always possible while appreciating the evidence available on record. Therefore, for such reason and in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation, it is always insisted that Court should follow recognized principles for interference in acquittal judgment. It was held in case reported as (PLD 1989 SC 293) that in exercise of power conferred by the Code, the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matter as.- "The view of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial, the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and the lowness of an Appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses".
And same position and guide line was drawn from the case reported as "Ghulam Sikandar v.
Namrad Khan" (PLD 1985 SC 11). In view of what has been discussed above, the learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment of learned trial Court passed in complaint case titled "Sajawal Khan, etc. v. Amir Sultan, etc.".
11. As a sequel and crux of my foregoing observations is that the instant writ petition is meritless and same is hereby dismissed in limine.