abdul majeed by mugserali002

VIEWS: 20 PAGES: 20

									 In the Court of Additional Commissioner

         Consolidation, Faisalabad




Nazar son of Sarang watto by caste, R/o chak

  No. 611G.B. Tesil Tandlianwala District

                Faisalabad

                                Petitioner.

                     Versus.

                1.     Akbar

       2.   Muhammad Saee Sons of

                 3.     Bivi

                4.     Bakhat
                             2


5.     Saban Bibi daughter of Wali Muhammad

     (deceased)R/o of chak No. 611G.B. Tesil

        Tandlianwala District Faisalabad

                      6.    Dolat

                  7.       Pehlwan

                 8.        Qalab Ali

                  9.       Zulfiqar

10. Shahadat sons of Sarang watto by caste,

     R/o chak No. 611G.B. Tesil Tandlianwala

               District Faisalabad

                      11. Noor

               12. Mullah sons of

 13. Anwar Bibi daughter of Fazal watto by

        caste, R/o chak No. 611G.B. Tesil

        Tandlianwala District Faisalabad

          14. Muhammad son of Rajba

     15. Mst Nawan (Nawab Bibi) daughter of

             Mst. Ayesha (deceased)
                     3


                16. Akbar

       17. Anwar sons of Khuda yar

          18. Azra Bibi widow of

              19. Zulqarnain

20. Sabtain minors sons of Sarwar (deceased)

         21. Mst. Nooran widow of

                22. Saif Ali

              23. Barkat Ali

           24. Khadam Hussain

            25. Anwar Hussain

        26. Arshad Hussain sons of

              27. Mst. Ayesha

      28. Khadeja daughters of Noor

               29. Abdullah

               30. Manzoor

31. Ahmad Ali sons of Jaffar watto by caste,

  R/o chak No. 611G.B. Tesil Tandlianwala

            District Faisalabad
                          4




                     Respondents.

 Petition under Section 12(2) of the CPC for

     setting the order dated 12-06-1985 aside,

       passed by the learned court of Sayed

       Muhammad Anis Sadiq,Additional

Commissioner Consolidationn Faisalabad in

     an Appeal(179/ACC of 1985) titled Wali

           Muhammad . Vs. Dulat etc.

                   ---------------------------

                        Sir,

         The petitioner respectfully submit as

                      under:-

1.    That a perusal of the record pertaining to

the appeal titled, Wali Muhammad . Vs. Dulat

etc.. has transpired that it was on 14-03-1985

Wali Muhammad , predecessor-in-interest of
                         5


the respondent Nos.1 to 5 preferred an appeal

        before Additional Commissioner

Consolidation Faisalabad. Against the order

     dated 20-11-1984 passed by the collector

Consolidation Jhang/Faisalabad. Whereby he

      distributed the appellant’s area to the

     respondent no 1 to 6 and prayed for the

setting aside the order dated 20-11-1984 and

            the acceptance of Appeal.

2.    That the said appeal was accepted by the

       learned court of Muhammad Anis

         Sadiq,Additional Commissioner

Consolidation Faisalabad. The same is liable

to be set aside on the following amongst other

               inter alia grounds:-

i.     That the present petitioner preferred an

       appeal before the Additional Deputy

     Commissioner Consolidation Faisalabad
                       6


against the order dated 28-08-1984 passed by

  consolidation officer whereby he did not

separate the khata of the petitioners and the

  same was allowed by the said Additional

    Deputy commissioner consolidation

Faisalabad vider order dated 20-11-1984. The

petitioner and the respondent no 6 to 10 were

  allotted wanda no 1 by way of which they

   became co-owners in possession in the

 property measuring 76K-12M comprising

square no 9 killa no 14/2,15/2,16,17/1,25/2and

            square no 34 killa no

   1/1,1/2,2/1,2/2,3,4,8,10/1,10/2 in respect

thereof a mutation no 12 dated 19-9-1985 was

attested and the petitioners along with others

continued to be co owner in possession of the

    said land without any exception and

interruption by or on behalf of any other one
                       7


 and this fact was well within the knowledge

 Wali Muhammad predecessor-in-interest of

 the respondent Nos.1 to 5, the Appellant in

the said Appeal. Neither any notice in respect

of said appeal was issued nor served upon the

present petitioner . and he also did not appear

 himself or through any counsel or attorney

before the learned appellate court therefore,

the question of compromise in respect of said

  appeal could not arise whereas there is no

thumb impression or signature of the present

petitioner on the order sheet rather the same

had been done by the said Wali Muhammad

getting in league with the staff of the learned

    court thus the impugned order had be

     procured by committing fraud and

             misrepresentation .
                       8


 ii. That the order sheet transpires that the

 said appeal was time barred the same was

  entertained rather allowed by the learned

 court hence the impugned order is without

                  jurisdiction



 3.     That Wali Muhammad (late) has died

 and the present respondent no 1to 5 are his

  legal heirs whereas Mst.Ayesha Bibi , the

 respondent in the said appeal has also died

leaving behind the respondent Nos. 15 to 17 as

  her legal heir. And Sarwar has also died

therefore. Respondent No .18 to 20 have been

 impleaded in place of said Sarwar deceased

   4.    That the respondent 19 and 20 are

   minors and are hereby impleaded in the

   captioned petition through their mother

 respondent no 18 as guardian however, the
                         9


  interest of minor is not in conflict with the

             said guardian’s interest.

 5.     That the petitioner could first come to

      know as to the passing of the order in

question in the month of May, 2012, when the

 respondent no 1 to 5 attempted to interfere

into the lawful possession of plaintiff over the

 land by operating upon the impugned order

 Whereafter, he contacted the respondents

personally and alongwith the notables of the

vicinity with a request to set the null and void

order aside but after promising in that behalf

     they have, a week ago, finally refused to

accede to these requests of the petitioner and

     hence the instant petition against them.

6.     That the cause of action lastly accrued to

     the petitioners a week ago, as referred to
                          10


     above, in preceding para of the instant

                      petition.

7.     That the suit property is lying within the

 territorial jurisdiction of this court, whereat

 the impugned order has been delivered by

this learned court and the cause of action has

     also arisen to the petitioners thereat, the

       instant court has, therefore, got the

jurisdiction to entertain the titled petition and

 adjudicate upon the matter in issue therein.

8.    That a court fee of Rs.20.00 has been paid

                by the petitioners.



 It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the

 instant petition may please be allowed and

     the order dated 12-6-1985, made by the

     learned court of Sayed Muhammad Anis

         Sadiq,Additional Commissioner
                            11


        Consolidationn Faisalabad in an

    Appeal(179/ACC of 1985) titled Wali

Muhammad . Vs. Dulat etc.. Any other relief

to which the petitioner may be found entitled

  may graciously also be awarded to him.

   1.   Qaisar Mehmood alias Qaisar Naz



          2.     Mst. Hameeda Begum



           3.        Mst. Khurshaid Bibi



                4.     Mst. Anyat Bibi

                       Petitioners.



                         Through counsel:-



               Mian Tariq Mehmood

    Dated:17.04.2007.                 Advocate,
                                       12


                                  Mailsi Law Associates,

                 379-Jinnah Law Chambers,

                 District Courts, Faisalabad.




             In the Lahore High Court Lahore




           Criminal Appeal No.________________/2011

District        Date of filing   Whether filed through     Stamp on appeal
                                 Agent Counsel or Person
Faisalabad 09-08-2011            Mian Muhammad Raza,       Nil
                                 Advocate High Court,
                                 194-A,179,B District
                                 Courts Faisalabad
                                 C.C.NO PFB.13881
Zulqarnain son of Muhammad Hussain caste Mughal resident of
Pakistan Chowk Main Narwala Road near Slaughter house
Faisalabad.
                                            ………Appellant/Complainant.
                                   Versus.
    1.       Mst.Nighat Bibi wife of Muhammad Chand,
    2.       Muhammad Chand son of Muhammad Ishaq, Both Mughal
             by caste residents of Street No. 2,Khokhar Town,District
             Faisalabad.
    3.       The state.
                                                 …………Respondents
                                  13


CRL.APPEAL
AGAINST ACQUITTAL;-UNDER SECTION 417 OF CR.C.P
                          AGAINST      THE    JUDGMENT       OF
                          ACQUITTAL       DATED       05-07-2011
                          PASSED BY THE COURT OF MR.
                          ISHTIQ AHMAD,         THE SESSIONS
                          JUDGE,FAISALABAD
RELIEF
CLAIMED                   APPEAL MAY PLEASE BE ACCEPTED AND
                          IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL
                          OF THE RESPONDENTS NO. 1 & 2 MAY
                          VERY GRACIOUSLY BE SET-ASIDE AND
                          THEY MAY VERY KINDLY BE CONVICTED
                          AND SENTENCED TO THE MAXIMUM.

RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:-

1. The prosecution story that it was on 27-03-2011 the complainant

   Mailk Aamir was an elected representative as Naib Nazim U.C

   272 Faisalabad received a telephonic call that a suspicious jute bag

   was lying in a vacant plot in Charagh Colony near Church. The

   complainant Mailk Aamir went there and found that the said jute

   bag contained the deed body of young unknown man. The deed

   body had marks of injuries on his head and the deed body was 2/3

   days old, as it was giving bad smell. That complainant Mailk

   Aamir got registered FIR No.190 dated 27-07-2009 under section

   302,109 of PPC, Police section Raza abad Faisalabad then on 29-

   07-2009 Appellant (Zulqarnain) ,another brother of the deceased

   came up. Muhammad Asif deceased of this case was appellant‘s

   real junior brother.

2. That it was on 29-03-2009, the appellant came to know about the

   recovery of an unknown deed body FIR for murder was registered
                                14


  on 27-03-2009 in police station Razaabad Faisalabad and it also

  came into knowledge that deed body was lying in the mortuary of

  hospital.

3. That the respondent No. 2 is also appellant’s real brother.

  Muhammad Asif deceased lived with respondent No. 1 & 2 home

  jointly, situated in khokhar Town Faisalabad.The date 24-04-2002

  was also a day for the marriage of deceased Muhammad Asif and

  deceased prior to the occurrence was untraceable and appellant

  found him under agony.The appellant along with his brother

  Liaqat Ali, cousin Muhammad Zahid and Nadeem had gone to

  Allied Hospital Faisalabad so as to see the deed body .we

  identified the deed body in mortuary as deceased Muhammad Asif

  thereafter, appellant along with his brother Liaqat Ali, cousin

  Muhammad Zahid and Nadeem went to the Mohallah where both

  accused and deceased used to reside and inquired from the

  neighbors also about this incident and then went to the house of

  respondent No. 1 &2. The movement appellant along with his

  brother Liaqat Ali, cousin Muhammad Zahid and Nadeem entered

  the house gained a foul smell. When we saw inside the kitchen,

  there were the signs that floor was repaired after digging. The

  appellant along with his brother Liaqat Ali, cousin Muhammad

  Zahid and Nadeem inquired from respondent No. 1 & 2 about

  Muhammad Asif deceased.In first instance respondent No. 1 & 2

  made resistance and finally respondent No. 1 & 2 admitted the

  crime and confessed before us that they had committed the murder

  of Muhammad Asif, after having connivance with each other
                                     15


   respondent No. 2 confessed that Muhammad Asif deceased was

   sleeping in the night and at the time he got”Ghotna”(a piece of

   heavy wood used to grind the spices) and then he gave a blow on

   the head of Muhammad Asif deceased. The respondent No.1 & 2

   confessed that after two days because of foul smell, they remove

   deed body placed it in a jute bag kept it on a bicycle and then

   respondent No. 2 brought the deed body in Mohallah Charagh

   colony and had thrown it in a vacant plot.

      The motive behind the occurrence is that deceased had given

      certain loan to respondent No. 1 & 2 and he also purchased

      common house with them for which he was making demand, so

      to avoid that demand and to get the property of Muhammad

      Asif deceased, both respondent No. 1 & 2 committed his

      murder.

4. That after completing of investigation, challan was submitted

   before the learned trial court.

5. That the learned triad court framed the charge against accused

   persons on and asked the prosecution to submit evidence.

6. That the appellant submitted his evidence oral as well as

   documentary and proved his case successfully and thereafter

   statement of accused persons under section 342 Cr.P.C was

   recorded.

7. That the learned trial court illegally and unlawfully acquitted the

   accused respondent No. 1 & 2 vide its impugned judgment dated

   05-07-2011, hence this appeal of inter alia on the following

   amongst others;-
                              16



                          G r o u n d s.
a) That the impugned judgment is opposed to law and facts of

   the case, hence is not maintainable in the eye of law.

b) That the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial

   court while acquitting the accuse respondent No. 1 & 2 is

   against the law and facts. The judgment so passed by the

   learned trial court is arbitrary,fanciful, uncalled for and

   unjust in the eye of law and for the safe administration of

   justice, liable to be set-aside/reversed.

c) That the respondent No. 1 & 2/ accused persons have

   committed a heinous offence and they are not entitled for

   any leniency.

d) That the accused are attributed a specific role in FIR and

   also proved through reliable evidence hence there was no

   room to take lenient view when every type of evidence is

   availed to tag the respondent No. 1 & 2 with the offence.

e) That as per testimony of the PWs. The respondent No. 1 &

   2/ accused persons are fully linked with the commission of

   crime and the case fully stood proved against the respondent

   No. 1 & 2/ accused persons.

f) That the appellant fully proved his case on motive part as

   well as the medical evidence also corroborates to tag the

   accused persons with the alleged offence, but the leaned trial

   court not considered this important aspect of the case while
                                  17


        acquitting the accused of an heinous offence under section

        302/34 PPC in a very desperate manner.

     g) That the learned trial court misdirected itself while

        acquitting the respondent No. 1 & 2/ accused persons, when

        the case has been proved against the accused, the impugned

        judgment is without any cogent and sound reason, is liable

        to be reversed.

     h) That the impugned judgment of the learned trial court is

        illegal, uncalled for and without any justification in the eyes

        of law and liable to be set-aside.

     i) That the judgment of the learned trial court is based on

        surmises and conjectures and not based on sound appraisal

        of evidence, hence liable to be set-aside.

PRAYER;-

             It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this appeal

           may kindly be accepted and impugned judgment dated 05-

           07-2011 passed by learned          trial   court   acquitting

           respondent No. 1 and 2 may kindly be set-aside and

           respondent No.1 and 2 be convicted and punished to be

           maximum in the interest of justice.

                                             Zulqarnain

                                           Appellant/complainant
                                Through counsel:-

                          Main Muhammad Raza,
Dated:-11-10-2010         Advocate, High Court,
                          Mian Raza Law Associates,
                          194/A-District Courts, Faisalabad.
                          C.C.No P-FB.13881
                                       18




      VERIFICATE:-
           As per instructions of the client, this is the first appeal before this
           Hon’ble court




                                            ADVOCATE
      Crl.app.against.act.d.09




      In the Lahore High Court Lahore




                   C.A. No.________________/2010



Zulqarnain                  Vs.             Mst.Nighat Bibi, etc.

AFFIDAVIT

Of Zulqarnain son of Muhammad Hussain caste Mughal resident of
Pakistan Chowk Main Narwala Road near Slaughter house
Faisalabad.



I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly declare and affirm

as under:-
                                  19


       That the averment as contained in the accompanying appeal are

       correct and true to the best of my knowledge and belief and

       nothing has been concealed there from.



                                                   DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:-



       Verified on Oath at 09-08-2011 that the contents of above

       affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and

       belief.

                                                   DEPONENT




                 In the Lahore High Court Lahore




                   C.A. No.________________/2010

Zulqarnain               Vs.           Mst.Nighat Bibi, etc.

                    INDEX

S.No      DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENNTS             DATED          PAGES

1         GROUNDS OF APPEAL WITH

          AFFIDAVIT

2         IMPUGNED JUDGMENT                     5-07-2011

3         POWER OF ATTORNEY
                  20




                Appellant/complainant



                Through counsel:-
          Main Muhammad Raza,
Dated:-   Advocate, High Court,
          Mian Raza Law Associates,
          94/A-District Courts, Faisalabad.
          C.C.No P-FB.13881

								
To top