2012 PLP 1438 (MLD)
GHULAM HAIDER — Petitioner Versus FARKHANDA IQBAL and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 1438 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM HAIDER — Petitioner Versus FARKHANDA IQBAL and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 1438 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 1438 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 1438 (MLD) (GHULAM HAIDER — Petitioner Versus FARKHANDA IQBAL and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Khalid Mehmood for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 516-A
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Complainant (petitioner) lodged F.I.R. against the accused for criminal breach of trust with regard to a tractor, and during investigation said tractor was recovered, accused was found guilty and the tractor was handed over to the complainant on superdari
Accused was not arrested for the offence and complainant filed a constitutional petition, whereupon, direction was issued to a senior police official to look into the matter and hold an inquiry and proceed against the police official who was found guilty
Senior police official (respondent) found that the investigation officer of the case had acted beyond his territorial jurisdiction and directed the same to recover the tractor from the complainant and produce the same before him
Custody of tractor had been handed over to the complainant on superdari by an order of the Magistrate
Superdari order was neither set aside by any court nor was it cancelled for any other reason
Prima facie order of superdari through which complainant got possession of the tractor still held the field and in presence of such an order, senior police official was not vested with any authority to direct the investigation officer to recover the tractor from the complainant for its production before him
Impugned order of senior police official to the extent of recovery of tractor from the complainant was declared illegal and without lawful authority
Impugned order contained factual assessments and High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction, could not determine the truth or falsity of such conclusions
Constitutional petition was partially allowed, accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J.
It is argued by learned counsel that petitioner is complainant of case F.I.R. No.167 of 2010 dated 13-3-2012 under section 406/506, P.P.C. Police Station City, Lodhran for criminal breach of trust by respondent No.3 with regard to Tractor. During investigation the said Tractor was recovered, accused/ respondent No.3 was declared guilty and the Tractor was handed over to respondent No.3(sic) on Superdari. It is further argued that as the accused were not being arrested, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.912 of 2012, whereupon direction was issued to DPO-Lodhran to look into grievance of the petitioner, hold an inquiry and if officials are found guity in the performance of duty, he shall proceed against them departmentally. The grievance of the petitioner is that under the garb of said direction of this court the SSP (Investigation) on 21-1-2012 held that Investigating Officer had acted beyond his territorial jurisdiction, as such, directed the Investigating Officer to recover the Tractor from the petitioner and produce it before him. This order/direction has been assailed by the petitioner through the instant writ petition.
2. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the available record.
3. I would not like to comment on the merits or demerits of the case, as any finding or observation of this court, may subsequently prejudice the case of either side. However, it is established from the record that after registration of case, through proper legal course the custody of the disputed Tractor was handed over to respondent No.3 on Superdari by an order of the Ilaqa Magistrate. It is no where mentioned that said Superdari order was either set aside by any court or the Superdari was cancelled for any other reason. Therefore, prima facie the order giving the Tractor to respondent No.3 (sic) on Superdari, still holds the field. In the presence of such an order, the SSP (Investigation), at least, was not vested with any authority to direct the Investigating Officer to recover the disputed Tractor from the complainant/petitioner for its production before him. Consequently, the impugned order of the SSP (Investigation) to the extent it directs recovery of Tractor from the petitioner, is declared illegal and without lawful authority. Other conclusions by the SSP (Investigation) in the impugned order/direction dated 21-1-2012, relate to factual assessment and this court while sitting in constitutional jurisdiction, cannot determine the truth or falsehood of such conclusions. This writ petition, therefore, is partially allowed in the above terms. M.W.A./G-14/L Order accordingly.