1976 P (PLP)
FAZAL‑Petitioner Versus INCHARGE, C. I. A. STAFF, JARANWALA‑Respondent
| Citation | 1976 P (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Shafi‑ur‑Rahman, J |
| Parties | FAZAL‑Petitioner Versus INCHARGE, C. I. A. STAFF, JARANWALA‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 P (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 P (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Shafi‑ur‑Rahman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 P (PLP) (FAZAL‑Petitioner Versus INCHARGE, C. I. A. STAFF, JARANWALA‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qureshi Mahmood Ahmed and Ch. M. Abdul Salim for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 3rd July 1976.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ S. 523‑Property, seizure of‑Police rounding up petitioner's cattle without indicating reasonable suspicion of such cattle being stolen‑Report of such seizure not submitted to Magistrate al required under S. 523, Cr. P. C.--‑Seizure and retention of cattle, in circumstances, held, illegal‑property restored to petitioner. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑ S. 523‑Property, seizure of‑Police rounding up petitioner's cattle without indicating reasonable suspicion of such cattle being stolen‑Report of such seizure not submitted to Magistrate al required under S. 523, Cr. P. C.--‑Seizure and retention of cattle, in circumstances, held, illegal‑property restored to petitioner. Qureshi Mahmood Ahmed and Ch. M. Abdul Salim for Petitioner. Respondent in person. Date of hearing : 3rd July 1976. This writ petition is divested against C. I. A. Staff and challenges the legality of the proceedings leading no the recovery of eight heads of cattle from the cable‑shed of the petitioner on 26‑9‑1972. It is stated that on 26‑9‑1972 the respondent, Incharge of the C. I. A. Staff, Jaranwala, came to the cattle‑shed of the petitioner and recovered eight heads of cattle and took them into possession. There was no case registered nor there existed any tangible suspicion with regard to the cattle being stolen property. It was kept by the respondent with him when the petition was filed on 5‑10‑1972. Notice issued to the respondent to appear and he did appear on 10‑ 10‑1972 and made a statement that he had recovered the property as a stolen property, that recovery had not been reported to the Magistrate as required under section 523, Cr. P. C. and that instead a notice had issued under Chapter 23, Rule 1.18 of the Police Rules.
2. There is no written statement filed by the respondent nor has he turned up to contest the proceedings finally when they came up for hearing there is no indication that he had reasonable suspicion of the property being stolen property. He did not follow the law after making such seizure inasmuch as he failed to follow the law applicable and contained in section 523 Cr. P. C. The seizure of the cattle was therefore illegal and so was the retention of the cattle by the respondent in his possession without resorting the same to the Magistrate. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed with costs. The property recovered to be restored to the person from whom recovery has been made. If any case has been registered after the recovery of the stolen property from the petitioner the respondent would be free to deal with the property covered by such a case in accordance with law. Petition allowed.