Article 3 (2) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitutional application illegal settlement that he had taken home in a rented dispute and set up a sweet factory, but the armed applicants forcibly occupied the house and The various articles lying there were also seized and held in cash at Rs. 3,000,000. There was evidence of the prosecution's testimony that the plaintiff was the employee of the defendant / complainant on the same thing, but he had to remove his own evidence. Was not enough, when he fully supported the complainant and explained how the applicants / accused had taken over the dispute. Property testimony was in accordance with the complainant's version and the mood of the witness present in all details. There was no contradiction between the statements of the two witnesses, who also supported the complainant's version as a police officer. The witnesses 'testimony was thoroughly investigated, but nothing in favor of the applicants / accused was dropped on the respondents' compulsion. / Complainant against disputed property against the applicant proved on record, the applicant was properly punished and sentenced for unclean decision, not open to any exceptions, verification The sentence that was applied to the applicants is sufficient and sufficient as there must be some proportion between the crime and the sentence cannot be increased as the defendant pleads.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
