2016 PCrLJ 672 ISLAMABAD

Full text

SAJID JAVED VS ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (WEST) ISLAMABAD 2000 SCMR 785, 2008 PCr.LJ 719, 2010 PCr.LJ 575, 2013 PCr.LJ 953, 2014 YLR 1791, 2014 YLR 390, 2015 PCr.LJ 913, 2015 YLR 715, PLD 2007 Lah. 231, PLD 2011 Lah. 340, PLD 2015 Lah. 93, Commencement of trial--Term , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--265-C , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--265-D , Illegal Dispossession Act 2005--3 , Illegal Dispossession Act 2005--4 , Illegal Dispossession Act 2005--7 , Prevention of illegal possession of property--Term , Ss. 7, 4 & 3---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 265-C & 265-D---Prevention of illegal possession of property---eviction and mode of recovery as an interim relief---Supply of statements and documents to accused---Framing of charge---Commencement of trial---Trial Court, allowing application under S. 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, restored possession of the subject property to the complainants---Validity---Provisions of S. 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 manifested that grant of interim relief was subject to the condition, 'during trial'---Taking cognizance of the case by the court was the first step, which might or might not culminate into the trial of the accused, and trial did not commence with taking of the cognizance--- Trial would not start until a period of seven days after supplying of the relevant copies to the accused in terms of S. 265-C(2)(b), Cr.P.C. had expired and the charge had been framed---Court had to perform its judicial duty under S. 265-D, Cr.P.C. to frame the charge after perusal of the police report, complaint and all other documents/statements filed by the prosecution, and if the court was of the opinion that sufficient ground existed to proceed with the trial, the court would frame charge in writing against the accused---Provision of S. 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 had to be seen in the context of the word used in the same, especially the words, 'Court is satisfied' and 'found prima facie', which cast duty upon the court to perform all those functions, which required in framing of charge---Application of S.7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, therefore, could only be assumed when the entire material had been looked into and the court was of the considered view that the charges prima facie existed against the accused---Section 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 would, therefore, could only come into play after framing of the charge---Trial Court had yet to conclude prima facie existence of the allegations after perusal of the FIR, police report, statement of witnesses and other documents and had to formulate its mind to frame the charge under S. 265-D, Cr.P.C. or otherwise---In the present case, as the charge had not yet been framed, order passed under S. 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was illegal and without jurisdiction---High Court, setting aside the impugned order, held that the application under S. 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 would be deemed to be pending before the Trial Court, and the same would be taken up after the commencement of the trial---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.