2008 PLP 2196 (YLR)
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and 2 others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL HALEEM KHAN and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 2196 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and 2 others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL HALEEM KHAN and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 2196 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 2196 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 2196 (YLR) (PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and 2 others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL HALEEM KHAN and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nisar Abbas Joura, for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos.3 and 4.
- ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Through this writ petition the petitioners have called in question the judgment dated 2-11-2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali as well as the order, dated 26-1-2002 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Mianwali whereby Superdari of a vehicle, subject-matter of a criminal case, had been given to respondent No.1 and a revision petition filed thereagainst had been dismissed. It has straightaway been observed by me that the petitioners had never applied for Superdari of the relevant vehicle and, thus, even if the petitioners succeed in getting the impugned order/judgment set aside by this Court they still may not obtain Superdari of that vehicle ipso facto. Faced with this situation the learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners would like to apply before the learned Magistrate concerned seeking Superdari of the relevant vehicle after cancellation of Superdari already granted in favour of respondent No.1. The petitioners may adopt the said course, if so advised. It may be clarified that it has already been held by this Court in the case of Muhammad Arshad v. Liaqat Ali and another 2000 YLR 3040 that a fresh order of Superdari can be passed by a Magistrate if an earlier order regarding the same is found by him to be based upon incorrect facts or unjust in the circumstances of the case. It is, therefore, expected that if the petitioners approach the learned Magistrate concerned in this regard then the learned Magistrate shall consider the submissions to be made and material to be produced by the petitioners before him and he shall, then take an appropriate decision in that regard as found by him to be warranted in the circumstances. With these observations this writ petition is hereby disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 516-A
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Petitioner sought setting aside of the order of the Magistrate giving Superdari of vehicle
Petitioners had never applied for Superdari of the vehicle and, thus, even if they would succeed in getting the impugned order set. aside by High Court, they still might not obtain the vehicle on Superdari ipso facto
Magistrate was competent to pass a fresh order of Superdari if an earlier order regarding the same was found by him to be based upon incorrect facts or unjust in the circumstances of the case
If the petitioners would approach the concerned Magistrate in this regard, he was expected to consider the submissions to be made and material to be produced by the petitioners before him and to take an appropriate decision as warranted in the circumstances
Constitutional petition was disposed of with the said observations. Muhammad Arshad v. Liaqat Ali and another 2000 YLR 3040 ref.
S. 516-A
Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial
Magistrate can pass a fresh order of Superdari if an earlier order regarding the same is found by him to be based upon incorrect facts or unjust in the circumstances of the case. Muhammad Arshad v. Liaqat Ali and another 2000 YLR 3040 ref. Akhtar Ali Kureshi, Asstt. A.-G. for the Petitioners with Dr. Liaqat Ali, Medical Officer.
Judgment & Decree
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.
Through this writ petition the petitioners have called in question the judgment dated 2-11-2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali as well as the order, dated 26-1-2002 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Mianwali whereby Superdari of a vehicle, subject-matter of a criminal case, had been given to respondent No.1 and a revision petition filed thereagainst had been dismissed. It has straightaway been observed by me that the petitioners had never applied for Superdari of the relevant vehicle and, thus, even if the petitioners succeed in getting the impugned order/judgment set aside by this Court they still may not obtain Superdari of that vehicle ipso facto. Faced with this situation the learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners would like to apply before the learned Magistrate concerned seeking Superdari of the relevant vehicle after cancellation of Superdari already granted in favour of respondent No.1. The petitioners may adopt the said course, if so advised. It may be clarified that it has already been held by this Court in the case of Muhammad Arshad v. Liaqat Ali and another 2000 YLR 3040 that a fresh order of Superdari can be passed by a Magistrate if an earlier order regarding the same is found by him to be based upon incorrect facts or unjust in the circumstances of the case. It is, therefore, expected that if the petitioners approach the learned Magistrate concerned in this regard then the learned Magistrate shall consider the submissions to be made and material to be produced by the petitioners before him and he shall, then take an appropriate decision in that regard as found by him to be warranted in the circumstances. With these observations this writ petition is hereby disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. N.H.Q./P-46/L Order accordingly.