2022 PLP 2009 (MLD)
CIVIL SUPPLY OFFICER, DISTRICT SKARDU — Petitioner Versus MEHDI — Respondent
| Citation | 2022 PLP 2009 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | CIVIL SUPPLY OFFICER, DISTRICT SKARDU — Petitioner Versus MEHDI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP 2009 (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 2022 PLP 2009 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2022 PLP 2009 (MLD) (CIVIL SUPPLY OFFICER, DISTRICT SKARDU — Petitioner Versus MEHDI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S.517
Order for disposal of property regarding which offence committed
Scope
Respondent filed an application under S.517, Cr.P.C., before the Trial Court for return of certain amount recovered from his possession by the FIA during investigation of a criminal case
Trial Court directed the appellant to return the amount
Trial Court after full-fledged trial of main criminal case had acquitted the respondent from the charges, which exposed the fact that the respondent was innocent and the FIA had failed to prove its case against the respondent
Acquittal of respondent had been maintained by the Supreme Court
Federal Investigating Agency authorities had wrongly recovered the amount from the respondent, who was entitled to get it back after his acquittal
Appellant had challenged the impugned order with a delay of 50 days whereas the law provided only 30 days to file an appeal
Delay in filing appeal was not condonable
Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ALI BAIG, CJ.
The instant criminal appeal under section 417 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the appellant/petitioner against the judgment/order dated 17.06.2021 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Skardu in C.M No.94/2020, whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has allowed the petition of present respondent and issued directions for recovery of amount amounting to Rs.246,737/- from the present appellant and to return back the said amount to the present respondent.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court has wrongly decided the case against the present appellant without observing evidence available on record. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned trial Court while disposing the case has not bothered to issue notice to the complainant and decided the case arbitrarily, hence the impugned order is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the learned trial Court has badly failed to understand the facts and legal propositions of law and without touching the merits of case, has wrongly passed the impugned order for recovery of money, which is illegal and against the law.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant in detail and perused the record of the case.
4. From perusal of record it reveals that the learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment/order on 17.06.2021 wherein the learned trial Court has accepted the petition filed by the present respondent under section 517, Cr.P.C., for disposal/return of amount amounting to Rs.246,737/- which was recovered from the present respondent by the FIA authorities during investigation of criminal case bearing FIR No.02/1997 of PS FIA No.14 Gilgit. The learned trial Court while accepting the said application, directed the present appellant to return the said amount to the present respondent, vide impugned order dated 17.06.2021.
5. Perusal of record also reveals that the learned trial Court after full-fledged trial of main criminal case, has acquitted the present respondent from the charges contained in FIR No.02/1997 of PS, FIA No.14 Gilgit, which exposes the fact that the respondent is innocent and FIA authorities have failed, to prove its case against the respondent and the said acquittal order has been maintained by the Hon'ble apex Court. The acquittal of the respondent strengthens the fact that the FIA authorities have wrongly recovered the said amount from the respondent, who is entitled to get back after his acquittal. Moreover, the appellant has challenged the impugned order with a delay of 50 days. The appellant failed to explain the reasons of delay of each and every day in his application filed under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908, which is the prerequisite of provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Law provides only 30 days to file an appeal, whereas only 90 days have been provided for filing of revision petition, but the appellant has miserably failed to avail the provided limitation period as provided by law. Hence, the delay in filing the instant criminal appeal by the appellant is not condonable and the appeal of the appellant is hopelessly time barred and is not maintainable.
6. In view of foregoing reasons, the instant Cr. Appeal No.03/2021 and C.M(cd) No.71/2021 are not maintainable and the same are hereby dismissed in limine being time barred. Consequently, the impugned order dated 17-6-2021 passed by the learned trial Court is maintained. File. SA/141/GB Appeal dismissed.