Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1844 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Muhammad Qaiser Mirza vs Nazim Ali P

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1844 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Muhammad Qaiser Mirza VS Nazim Ali Panhwer Ss. 3, 4 & 5---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417 (2)---Illegal dispossession of property---Appeal against acquittal---Appreciation of evidence---Accused was charged for occupying the commercial plot of complainant forcibly---Evidently, the title documents submitted by the appellant were verified by the Karachi Development Authority and remained uncontested during cross-examination---Conversely, respondent/accused failed to produce any documentary evidence establishing his ownership, thereby rendering his claim legally untenable and devoid of merit---It was a matter of record that the accused failed to challenge the legitimacy of those documents during cross-examination, thereby trengthening the appellant's claim---Furthermore, the chain of title established a clear and lawful transfer of ownership from previous owners to the appellant, reinforcing his lawful possession of the subject property---Conversely, respondent/accused presented an unregistered agreement to sell dated 10-05-2006, purportedly executed by one "RA"---However, that document lacked any evidence establishing how the alleged seller acquired ownership of the property or had the legal authority to transfer it to respondent/accused---Moreover, an unregistered agreement to sell did not confer any legal right, title, or interest over immovable property, rendering it of no evidentiary value---Testimony of Inquiry Officer further solidified the appellant's case, as he categorically stated that his inquiry confirmed the appellant's lawful ownership, while respondent/accused failed to produce any valid title documents to substantiate his possession claim---Trial Court initially convicted respondent/accused based on the evidence presented---However, upon the case being remanded for reconsideration, the same Court acquitted respondent/accused, despite the documentary evidence on record remaining unchanged throughout the proceedings---Furthermore, the testimony of the Inquiry Officer, which corroborated the appellant's claims, further reinforced the strength of the appellant's case---Said fact raised questions about the rationale behind the acquittal, given that the evidentiary foundation remained intact and even gained additional support from the Inquiry Officer's findings---Complainant had also stated in the complaint that respondent/accused took possession of the subject property in April 2018---Despite that, the Trial Court erroneously placed undue emphasis on the alleged lack of a specific date of dispossession in the appellant's complaint---However, since the month of dispossession was clearly specified, the mere absence of an exact date should not have led to any adverse inference---In order to invoke Ss.3 & 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, a complainant must prima facie establish before the Court that he was lawful owner or lawful occupier of the subject property; accused unlawfully entered upon the property without legal authority; accused's entry was with the intent to dispossess, grab, control, or unlawfully occupy the property---Record showed that the appellant had fulfilled all the said essential requirements of law as per evidence available on record---It was observed by the Trial Court that the complaint was filed after one year of dispossession, however, there was no statutory limitation for initiating legal proceedings in criminal offences---Furthermore, the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, does not prescribe any time restriction for prosecuting the offences enumerated within it---It was observed by the Trial Court that out of five only two witnesses were produced, however the law did not necessitate the production of all five witnesses whose statements were recorded by the Inquiry Officer---Prosecution must present the best available evidence to support its case against the accused---However, it was not required to call a large number of witnesses; the prosecution may choose as many witnesses as it deem necessary to effectively establish guilt---Said fact aligned with the legal principle that emphasized the quality of evidence over quantity---Circumstances established that the impugned judgment was legally flawed, perverse, and had resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice---Criminal acquittal appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1844 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Muhammad Qaiser Mirza vs Nazim Ali Panhwer Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 1844 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ