ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Crl. Revision. Appln. No.S-14 of 2022.

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

01. For orders on M.A.No.1061/2022 (U/A).

02. For orders on office objection “A”.

03. For orders on M.A.No.1062/2022 (E/A).

04. For hearing of main case.

18.03.2022.

                   Mr. Imdad Ali Tunio, Advocate for the applicants.

                                                -.-.-.-.-.-

                   The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant criminal revision application are that a direct complaint filed by the private respondent for prosecution of applicants for having committed an offence punishable u/s.3/4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was brought on record by learned trial Court, such order was impugned by the applicants before this Court by filing a Crl.Misc.Application; it was disposed of, directing them to seek their pre-mature acquittal in accordance with law from learned trial Court by making an application u/s.265-K Cr.PC; it was moved but was dismissed by learned trial Court vide order dated 19.01.2022, which is impugned by the applicants before this Court by preferring the instant criminal revision application.

                   It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by the private respondent, otherwise, the civil litigation over the subject land between them have attained finality decades ago and regular trial would raise no probability of conviction of the applicants. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the impugned order with acquittal of the applicants.

                   Heard arguments and perused the record.

                   Admittedly, the direct complaint for the subject offence filed by the private respondent has been brought on record with issuance of process against the applicants by learned trial Court. In that situation, the private respondent could not be denied right to prove his case by examining his witnesses; such denial would amount to deny the right of fair trial to him and it would be contrary to the mandate prescribed under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Without trial, it would be hard to make a conclusion that there would be no probability or possibility of the applicants being convicted of the offence alleged against them. It is settled by now that the civil and criminal proceedings could continue side by side. If the applicants are having a feeling that they being innocent have been involved in a false case by the private respondent, then they could prove their innocence by participating in trial actively. No case for their pre-mature acquittal apparently is made out and in these circumstances, learned trial Court was right to pass the impugned order, which is not found illegal to be interfered with by this Court. Consequently, the instant criminal revision application is dismissed in limine together with listed applications.

JUDGE