Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SH. NISAR AHMAD VS Respondent: THE STATENemo,Kh. Shaukat Ali for the State.
1991 P Cr
1991 P Cr. L J 2320
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Munir Khan, J
Sh. NISAR AHMAD---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Revision No.532 of 1982, heard on 10th February, 1991.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--
---S. 448---Evidence, appreciation of---Civil suits between parties regarding entitlement of disputed shop were pending---Proceedings under S.145, Cr.P.C. had also taken place---Accused allegedly had put his own lock over the lock of complainant---Accused did not physically enter the shop---Dispute was of civil nature---Putting lock over the lock did not constitute an offence of criminal trespass---Conviction and sentence was set aside in circumstances.
Nemo for Petitioner.
Kh. Shaukat Ali for the State.
Date of hearing: 10th February, 1991.
JUDGMENT
Sh. Nisar Ahmad, petitioner, stands convicted under section 448, P.P.C. and sentenced to six months' R.I. on the charge of criminal trespass into the shop in possession of the complainant.
2. No one has appeared for the petitioner. Since the revision, after having been admitted, cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution, so I have examined the case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State.
3. I feel persuaded to accept this revision on the ground that, admittedly, there were civil suits between the parties with regard to the entitlement of this shop. Furthermore, there were proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. with regard to the possession of the shop in dispute. The dispute between the parties over the shop appears to be of civil nature. Furthermore, the allegations that the petitioner had put his own lock on the shop already locked by the complainant does not amount to criminal trespass into the shop, inasmuch as unless a person physically enters into the house or shop, it cannot be said that he had trespassed into the house/shop/building. The act of double lock is not a criminal trespass in any manner.
For what has been said above, the revision is accepted and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge under section 448, P.P.C. He is on bail and stands discharged of the bail bonds.
SA./N-451/L Revision accepted.