MUHAMMAD USMAN S. MEMON versus IVTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD
Under section 3 of the Unlawful Occupation Act, 2005, the prevention of unlawful possession of the appropriate components / elements of a crime, such as various offenses involving various elements or components, is all set before the offense is declared. Had to be said, the crime involved four elements. First, it was that the complainant must be the real owner of the property. Secondly, the issue of title will go towards establishing this element. The third and fourth factor was that the accused entered the property without any legal authority. And the complainants were based on the agreement of the respondents / accused to sell their legitimate possession claims, the question of whether the agreement was fraudulent, was within the jurisdiction and jurisdiction of the criminal court, which seized the complaint under illegal settlement. had gone. The Act, 2005; and the issue can be considered and adjudicated on the one hand, judicial proceedings in the civil court, and on the other the criminal jurisdiction of the court, both separately and separately, can be both wrong and a criminal offense. A party's failure to establish that a criminal offense under this Act does not mean that it cannot be civil is wrong because the standard of proof required in the civil suit differs from a criminal trial. Yes, crime must be criminal in a criminal case. While living in a civil suit, beyond reasonable doubt, the court simply had to consider the balance of probability even if the complainant failed to prove that the sale agreement was a forgery, it would not automatically mean it. That the competing defendants / accused will be entitled to it. Such a thing for a specific performance order
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
