1969L3056 (PLP)

Malik Abdul Hamid for the State. On 13th April 1968, Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Assistant Sub Inspector Rangers, West Pakistan, Lahore, on receipt of intelli gence report raided the house of the father of Khizar Hayat and at the painting out of Muhammad Ramzan, an employee of Khizar Hayat, recovered 1235 mands of Munji. Since the stock of the Munji had not bean formerely declared and that neither Khizar Hayat nor Muhammad Ramzan was authorised dealers, Cn. Muhammad Aslam A. S. I. got a case registered against them with Sukheke Police. On 20th June 1968, one Liaqat Husain applied for the restoration of the aforementioned Muuji without telling as to who was its real owner and without showing as to what right he had to apply for the restoration of the Munji. A report was called for from the police and the Station House Odicer, Police Station, Sukheke also failed to find out as to who was its owner and simply said that he had made a report for the cancellation of the case, which was not agreed to by the Magistrate, who directed the police to go ahead by putting in challan in Court. Thereafter on 28th August 1968, Muhammad Nazir, Ch. Ahmad Khan, Ch. Muhammad Abdultah, Ch. Nawazish Ullah, Dost Muhammad and Liaqat Husain made another application for getting the above mentioned 1235 maunds of Munji on the ground that they (and nut Khizar Hayat) were its owner. On 31st August 1968, yet another application was made by one Karam Din, Rice Dealer, requesting that he be given the Munji as he had struck a bargain of that Munji as an authorised dealer with Khiz it Hayat etc., so that he could supply rice to the Government after husking it. The Magistrate without holding an inquiry, because he had found it difficult to find out as to who was the real owner of the recovered Munji, authorised the District Food Controller, Gujranwala, to take possession of it vide his order dated 2nd September 1968. Against that order Ch. Nawazish Ullah has filed the present revision petition praying that the order of the Magistrate be set aside that he be directed to deliver the Munji to the petitioner and others after holding an inquiry.

2. In the aforementioned circumstances the Magistrate should have acted under section 523, Cr. P. C., which reads as follows :‑ "(1) The seizure by any police officer of property taken under section 51, or alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence, shall be forthwith reported to a Magistrate, who shall make such order as he thinks fit respect ing the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or, if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property. (2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit. If such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation." Thus it is clear that the Magistrate had to hand over the Munji to the person who was entitled to its possession, which means that it was incumbent upon him to make an inquiry as to who was the person entitled to its possession. The Magistrate in the A present case without making an inquiry handed over the Munji to the District Food Controller and thereby contravened the provisions of the above section. I accordingly, accept the revision, set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and direct that he should hold an inquiry and hand over the Munji to the person, who is entitled to its possession. Petition accepted.