Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL SATTAR VS Respondent: TAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN
1994 P Cr
1994 P Cr. L J 1234
[Lahore]
Before Mian Nazir Akhtar, J
Rana ABDUL SATTAR---Petitioner
Versus
TAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN and others---Respondents
Writ Petition No.16882 of 1993, heard on 24th January, 1994.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898).-
----S. 516-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Custody of case property ---Superdari of the rickshaw was given to the petitioner by a Magistrate at S who subsequently cancelled the same---Revision petition of the petitioner against the said cancellation of Superdari was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, S---Rickshaw in question was the case property in a criminal case registered at L and Courts at S, therefore, had no jurisdiction to deal with the same---Orders passed by the Magistrate and the Sessions Court at S were consequently declared to be without lawful. authority and of no legal effect and were set aside accordingly.
Sh. Muhammad Asadullah for Petitioner.
S.M.K. Lodhi for Respondent No.1.
Nemo for Respondents Nos.2 and 3. Respondent No.4 in person.
Date of hearing: 24th January, 1994.
JUDGMENT
`This Constitutional petition has been filed to assail the orders, dated 10-11-1993 passed by the Magistrate, Sargodha, respondent No. 2 and 15 -11-1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha.
2. The learned Magistrate had granted Sapurdari of the rickshaw to the petitioner vide his order, dated 24-10-1993, which was subsequently cancelled vide the order, dated 10-11-1993. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, in his order, dated 25-11-1993 held that the rickshaw was case property in a criminal case registered at Lahore and the competent authority to decide the matter of Sapurdari was a Magistrate at Lahore. The learned counsel for the parties agree that the orders, dated 24-10-1993 and 10-11-1993 passed by the learned Magistrate at Sargodha are without jurisdiction and that the revision petition filed by the present petitioner should have been allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
3. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the orders, dated 24-10-1993 (whereby Sapurdari of the rickshaw was given to the petitioner), order, dated 10-11-1993 (whereby. Sapurdari was cancelled) passed by the Magistrate at Sargodha and the revisional order, dated 25-11-1993 regarding 8 dismissal of the revision petition are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The other part of the revisional order relating to the competence of a Magistrate at Lahore to pass an order - of Sapurdari of rickshaw is upheld.
4. As mentioned above the rickshaw is the case property in a criminal case registered at Lahore. Therefore, the petitioner or respondent No.1 may file a petition before a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction at Lahore for grant of Sapurdari of the disputed rickshaw. If any such application is made the same shall be decided by the Court on merits in accordance with the law. The petition is allowed in terms of the above order.
N.H.Q./A-566/L Petition allowed.