2020 PLP 1258 (MLD)
NIAZ BAT KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2020 PLP 1258 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NIAZ BAT KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP 1258 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 PLP 1258 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP 1258 (MLD) (NIAZ BAT KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kifayatullah for Petitioner.
- Deputy Advocate General for Respondent/State.
- 3. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently opposed this petition by contending that the vehicle in question has been used in a commission of offence registered under Section 9(c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for superdari of vehicle in question.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 516-A
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)
Scope
Petitioner had assailed order of lower Court whereby his application for superdari of vehicle was dismissed
Registration Book of the vehicle transpired that the petitioner was a bona fide owner of vehicle in question
No rival claimant had claimed ownership of vehicle in question
Challan against the accused had been submitted in Court and vehicle in question had not been shown as case property in column 4 of challan, therefore, the said vehicle was not required by the prosecution
Vehicle in question could not be detained in Police Station for an indefinite period as it would decay and deteriorate the colour and parts of vehicle
Prosecution was directed to hand over the vehicle in question to the petitioner on Superdari
Petitioner was directed to produce the vehicle in question in the Trial Court as and when required.
Judgment & Decree
ALI BAIG, J.
This criminal revision petition under section 439-A, Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the impugned order dated 24.01.2020 passed by the learned Vacations Judge/Special Judge Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 Gilgit; whereby, the learned trial court has dismissed application filed by the petitioner under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. for custody of a vehicle which was impounded by the police in case FIR No.42/2019, registered under section 9(c) CNSA, 1997 at Police Station Juglote Gilgit.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner is real owner of vehicle in question, therefore, he is entitled for custody of said vehicle and the learned trial court has committed illegality while dismissing application of petitioner filed under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the challan against the accused Musharraf Khan has been submitted in the trial court and the vehicle has not been made case property in the challan, therefore, the said vehicle is not required for production in the Court.
3. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently opposed this petition by contending that the vehicle in question has been used in a commission of offence registered under Section 9(c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for superdari of vehicle in question.
4. I have heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. From perusal of Registration Book of vehicle in question, it transpires that the petitioner is a bona fide owner of vehicle in question and no rival claimant has claimed ownership of vehicle in question. Challan against the accused namely Musharraf Khan has been submitted in Court and vehicle in question has not been shown as case property in column 4 of challan, therefore, the said vehicle is not required by the prosecution. The vehicle in question can not be detained in Police Station for an indefinite period as it would decay and deteriorate the colour and parts of vehicle.
6. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed. Consequently, prosecution is directed to hand over the vehicle in question to the petitioner on superdari. The petitioner shall produce the vehicle in question in the trial court as and when required. File. ADN/18/GB Revision allowed.