Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 80 of 1969, decided on 15th October 1969

--S. 522-Conviction set aside-Order under S. 522 must also be set aside. It is now well-settled that where a conviction is set aside, the order under section 522, Cr. P. C. resulting there from must also be set aside. Once it has been held that no offence has been committed, the consequences arising from the commission of the offence must automatically cease of exist.

Malik Saeed Hassan for Petitioner.

Major Waheed-ud-Din Virk for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 15th October 1969.

Ghulam Rasul, Abdul Rashid, Ali Muhammad, Taju and Saida were convicted under section 448, P. P. C., and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each by the S. D. M., Toba Tek Singh. An order was also passed under section 522, Cr. P. C., directing that the complainant should be put in possession of 1/4th of Ihata No. 81, regarding which the offence had been committed. The conviction and the sentence has been set aside on appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lyallpur, and the order under section 522, Cr. P. C., has also been set aside. The complainant-petitioner has challenged the order of acquittal through this revision petition.

2. I have examined the file of this case carefully and heard the counsel for the parties. The finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is that Mahboob Ilahi was not actually occupying the Ihata in dispute and as he was shown in the revenue papers as one of the co-sharers to the extent of 1/4th, he might have engineered this complaint to secure immediate relief. The appellate Court also held that it did not appeal to reason that when the complainant was in occupation of the property in dispute since the creation of Pakistan, all of a sudden Ghulam Rasul and his relations would dare to take forcible possession at this belated stage. These reasonings cannot be said to be perverse; rather it show that the appellate Court had applied its mind carefully and came to the correct conclusion. There is evidence on the record that the accused were in possession of the property for the last 18 years. In face of the evidence on the record the findings of acquittal cannot be said to be perverse, unreasonable of wrong.

3. The result is that the petition fails and is dismissed.

4. It is now well-settled that where a conviction is set aside, the order under section 522, Cr. P. C. resulting there from must also be set aside. Once it has been-held that no offence has been committed, the consequences arising from the commission of the offence must automatically cease to exist. I, therefore, have no alternative, but to recall my interim order dated the 6th February 1969, whereby the operation of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge under section 522, Cr. P. C. was stayed. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge will now be carried out in its entirety and the possession of the property in dispute would be restored to Ghulam Rasul and Taju.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.