Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: THE STATE VS Respondent: MUIJAMMAD KHALIL
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar Title: THE STATE vs MUIJAMMAD KHALIL Case No.: Crl. Appeal No.615 of 1990 Date of Judgment:1992-06-08 Reported As: 1992 P Cr. L J 2528 Result: Appeal dismissed
Judgment ORDER The respondents were challaned under section 379, P.P.C. For having allegedly cut 52 trees allegedly gown in the State land. After the submission of challan, they moved an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. And prayed for acquittal on the grounds that the trees were standing in their land and that actually they had planted them. The learned Magistrate, on having found that the Executive Engineer, Highway, had submitted a report that the land on which the trees were standing belonged to the respondents and that the Deputy Commissioner vide report dated 19-9- 1988 (photostat copy of which was placed before him) had also remarked that the trees had grown in the land which the respondents had given without compensation for constructing a road and also on being pointed out that after the registration of case, at -one stage, the Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police had got the case cancelled on finding the same as false, allowed the application filed by the respondents under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. And acquitted them. 2. Not feeling satisfied, the State has filed appeal against the acquittal of the respondents. 3. The learned AA.-G. Has not been able to rebut the facts noted to the impugned judgment, that the X.E.N. Highway had reported that the trees were growing in the land belonging to the respondents; that at one stage the Deputy Commissioner and the S.P. Had got the case cancelled and that the Deputy Commissioner had noted one that the trees were growing in the land which belonged to the respondents and which they ,had given free of cost for constructing a road. The acquittal order, which is based on documentary evidence, which the prosecution itself had attached with the challan, does not call for interference. 4. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine.