| Case ID |
20deaea0-c67b-434c-8d36-23bc162ef937 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Appeal No. 5-D of 1964 |
| Decision Date |
Jun 24, 1965 |
| Hearing Date |
Jan 27, 1965 |
| Decision |
The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal of Jane Alam against the conviction and sentence imposed under section 447 of the Pakistan Penal Code for criminal trespass. The Court found that the intention of the appellant was to annoy the complainant, who was in possession of the land, and that the actions of the appellant and his associates were unlawful. The judgment emphasized that mere knowledge of the probable annoyance caused by an act does not absolve the perpetrator from liability if the dominant intent was to cause annoyance. The Court underscored the necessity of establishing clear intent in criminal trespass cases, ruling that the evidence presented was sufficient to uphold the lower courts' findings of guilt. |
| Summary |
The case revolves around the principles of criminal trespass as defined under the Pakistan Penal Code, particularly focusing on the intent required to constitute such an offence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan deliberated on the appeal brought forth by Jane Alam, who challenged her conviction for trespassing on land claimed by Mrs. Atika Yunus. The Court examined the evidence, which indicated that the appellant entered the property knowing it was in the possession of the complainant and began construction activities despite protests. The ruling emphasized the distinction between mere knowledge of potential annoyance and actual intent to annoy, concluding that the appellant's actions clearly demonstrated intent to disturb the complainant's possession. The decision reinforces the legal standards for determining culpability in trespass cases, highlighting that an intention to cause annoyance can be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the act. This case serves as a significant reference for future cases involving issues of property rights, unlawful entry, and the requisite mental state for criminal liability. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
FAZLEAKBAR, B. Z. KAIKAUS,
HAMOODUR RAHMAN
|
| Lawyers |
A. Salam Khan Senior Advocate Supreme Court,
Mozammel Haq Advocate Supreme Court,
S. S. Hoda Attorney for Appellant,
B. N. Chowdhury Advocate Supreme Court,
A.W. Mallik Attorney for the State
|
| Petitioners |
JANE ALAM
|
| Respondents |
THE STATE
|
| Citations |
1965 SLD 102,
1965 PLD 640
|
| Other Citations |
Sinnasamy Selvanayagam v. The King P L D 1950 P C 119,
Ex parte Mercer In Re. Wise (1886) 17 Q B D 290,
Arjad Ali and another v. The Crown 3 D L R 13,
Nitya Ranjan Majumdar and others v. Jamini Kumar Das 9 D L R 446,
Rahmatullah and another v. The State 10 D L R 143
|
| Laws Involved |
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
|
| Sections |
447,
342,
441,
427,
243
|