2023 PLP 1252 (MLD)
SHER ALAM — Appellant Versus ABDUL RASHEED and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2023 PLP 1252 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court (AJ&K) |
| Bench Members | Kh. Muhammad Nasim and Raza Ali Khan, JJ |
| Parties | SHER ALAM — Appellant Versus ABDUL RASHEED and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2023 PLP 1252 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2023 PLP 1252 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court (AJ&K) bench comprising: Kh. Muhammad Nasim and Raza Ali Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2023 PLP 1252 (MLD) (SHER ALAM — Appellant Versus ABDUL RASHEED and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Maqbool War, Advocate-General and Imtiaz Hussain Raja, Advocate for Appellant.
- Sh. Masood Iqbal, Advocate for Respondents.
- 3. Mr. Imtiaz Hussain Raja, the learned Advocate, appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment of the High Court is against law, the facts and the record of the case. He submitted that the accused who is the owner of the vehicle had absconded after the occurrence, hence, the learned trial Court should not release the vehicle on superdari in absence of the absconder to any other person. He argued that the accused has managed to get released the said vehicle through his relative by giving him power of attorney, which cannot be released to him as the said vehicle is a case property. He finally submitted that the order of the trial Court as well as of the High Court may be set-aside.
- 4. Kh. Maqbool War, the learned Advocate-General also adopted the arguments of the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant.
- 5. On the other hand, Sh. Masood Iqbal, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents while placing on record a copy of the judgment of Additional District Criminal Court dated 06.06.2022, submitted that against the order of Superdari, passed by the trial Court, the appellant, herein, preferred a revision petition before the Additional District Court of Criminal jurisdiction on 21.05.2022, which was dismissed vide order 06.06.2022, but the same has been concealed by the appellant, before the High Court as well as from this Court, hence, the this appeal is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground.
- 5(sic.) We have heard the learned Advocate for the parties and gone through the record of the case made available. The perusal of the record and the judgment placed on record by the learned counsel for the respondents, reveals that respondent No.2, herein, filed an application for release of vehicle No. BE-235, on superdari, before the trial Court which was accepted. The said order was challenged by the appellant before Additional District Criminal Court, Dadyal, Mirpur, which was dismissed on the ground that against the order of Tehsil Criminal Court, remedy is provided under IPL to file revision petition before the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court. The said order attained finality, however, the appellant, herein, while concealing this fact, preferred another revision petition before the High Court against the order passed by the Tehsil Criminal Court, which indicates the mala fide of the appellant, therefore, the Court finds that the appellant has come to the Court with unclean hands, and is therefore not entitled to the relief sought. The Court further finds that the appellant's attempt to gain a benefit or advantage through questionable or unethical means is sufficient ground to deny the relief requested.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 42
Effect
Where the appellant had concealed the fact of dismissal of his earlier revision petition by the District Criminal Court from the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, the Supreme Court observed that such fact indicated the mala fide of the appellant
Appellant had come to the court with unclean hands and was therefore not entitled to the relief sought
Appellant's attempt to gain a benefit or advantage through questionable or unethical means was sufficient grounds to deny the relief requested
Once the earlier revision petition had been filed and the same had attained finality, there was no occasion for the appellant to file the second revision before the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court
Appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
RAZA ALI KHAN, J.
The titled appeal, has been directed against the judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court (hereinafter to be referred as High Court), dated 28.09.2022, whereby, the revision petition filed by the appellant, herein, has been dismissed.
2. The gist of the facts is that a case in the offences under sections 341/337A, 109/34 and 504, APC, was registered against Abdul Rashed and others, at the Police Station Dadyal, vide FIR dated 20.02.2022. During the pendency of the case, an application was filed by respondent No. 2, herein, for release of vehicle No. BE-235, on superdari which was kept under the custody of the Police Station, Dadyal. The learned trial Court accepted the application and released the said vehicle on superdari, vide order dated 18.05.2022. The said order was challenged before the High Court by filing revision petition which has also met the same fate and has been dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 28.09.2022.
3. Mr. Imtiaz Hussain Raja, the learned Advocate, appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment of the High Court is against law, the facts and the record of the case. He submitted that the accused who is the owner of the vehicle had absconded after the occurrence, hence, the learned trial Court should not release the vehicle on superdari in absence of the absconder to any other person. He argued that the accused has managed to get released the said vehicle through his relative by giving him power of attorney, which cannot be released to him as the said vehicle is a case property. He finally submitted that the order of the trial Court as well as of the High Court may be set-aside.
4. Kh. Maqbool War, the learned Advocate-General also adopted the arguments of the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant.
5. On the other hand, Sh. Masood Iqbal, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents while placing on record a copy of the judgment of Additional District Criminal Court dated 06.06.2022, submitted that against the order of Superdari, passed by the trial Court, the appellant, herein, preferred a revision petition before the Additional District Court of Criminal jurisdiction on 21.05.2022, which was dismissed vide order 06.06.2022, but the same has been concealed by the appellant, before the High Court as well as from this Court, hence, the this appeal is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. 5(sic.) We have heard the learned Advocate for the parties and gone through the record of the case made available. The perusal of the record and the judgment placed on record by the learned counsel for the respondents, reveals that respondent No.2, herein, filed an application for release of vehicle No. BE-235, on superdari, before the trial Court which was accepted. The said order was challenged by the appellant before Additional District Criminal Court, Dadyal, Mirpur, which was dismissed on the ground that against the order of Tehsil Criminal Court, remedy is provided under IPL to file revision petition before the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court. The said order attained finality, however, the appellant, herein, while concealing this fact, preferred another revision petition before the High Court against the order passed by the Tehsil Criminal Court, which indicates the mala fide of the appellant, therefore, the Court finds that the appellant has come to the Court with unclean hands, and is therefore not entitled to the relief sought. The Court further finds that the appellant's attempt to gain a benefit or advantage through questionable or unethical means is sufficient ground to deny the relief requested.
6. It is also to be observed that once the revision petition was filed against the order of the trial Court before the Additional District Criminal Court and the same attained finality, therefore, there was no occasion for the appellant to file the second revision before the High Court. In such state of affairs, the High Court has not committed any illegality while dismissing the revision petition. In view of the above, this appeal, having no backing is hereby dismissed. SA/5/SC(AJ&K) Appeal dismissed.