1989 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD HANIF and others‑‑Petitioners Versus AZIZ‑UR‑RAHMAN and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Nasir Aslam Zahid and Manoon Kazi, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HANIF and others‑‑Petitioners Versus AZIZ‑UR‑RAHMAN and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 P Cr (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 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Nasir Aslam Zahid and Manoon Kazi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD HANIF and others‑‑Petitioners Versus AZIZ‑UR‑RAHMAN and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Shah for Petitioners.
- Muzaffarul Haq for Respondent No.1.
- Date of hearing: 14th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 516‑A & 517‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art.199‑‑Custody of bus‑ Impugned order directing S.D.M. to dispose of application for custody of bus after hearing parties including petitioners‑‑Second order passed by S.D.M. directing to keep bus in police custody‑‑Impugned order not interfered with as adequate remedy was available against second order which could be resorted to‑ Writ petition, held, was not maintainable in circumstances. A.A. Muhammadally, Addl. A: G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.‑‑The petitioners are aggrieved by the order, dated 6‑6‑1988 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 15 of 1988 by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge (East), Karachi, to the extent that the impugned order did not give a direction to the S.D.M. for handing over the possession of the mini‑bus to the petitioners. The petitioners had themselves gone before the S.D.M. for seizure and custody of the bus and against his order the petitioners had filed the said revision application, which was disposed of by order dated 6‑6‑1988. The impugned order states that the order dated 16‑1‑1988 of the S.D.M. had been passed on the statement of respondent No.1 by the S.D.M. without hearing the aggrieved parties and in the circumstances the order, dated 16‑1‑1988 was set aside with a direction to hear all the affected parties and decide the application moved by the petitioners in accordance with the law. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioners moved another application before the S.D.M. for custody of the bus, but the S.D.M. has passed an order that the bus be kept in police custody. This order, which was passed on 12‑6‑1988 on the second application of the petitioner, has not been impugned nor any copy of that order, I dated 12‑6‑1988 has been filed in this petition. We are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order, dated 6‑6‑1988, which directed the S.D.M. to dispose of the application of the petitioners themselves after hearing all the parties including the petitioners. If thereafter any other order has been passed by the S.D.M. and the petitioners are aggrieved by the said order, they have adequate remedy available to them, which can be resorted to. In the circumstances, this petition is not maintainable and is dismissed as such.
2. Miscellaneous Application No. 1715 of 1988 has become infructuous. SA./M‑648/K Writ petition dismissed.