2005 PLP 1063 (SCMR)
HASSAN MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus NAZAR HUSSAIN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1063 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | HASSAN MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus NAZAR HUSSAIN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1063 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1063 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1063 (SCMR) (HASSAN MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus NAZAR HUSSAIN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tanveer Ahmad, Advocate-on-record for Petitioner.
- Ch. Rashid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court for respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 21st March, 2003. .
- Tanveer Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑record for Petitioner.
- M. Saleem Shad, Advocate Supreme Court and Abdul Latif, Sub‑Inspector for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 11-9-2002 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan passed in Crl. Misc. 81-Q of 2002).
S. 516-A
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Question of title of the tractor and whether the conditions enumerated in the alleged executed agreement concerning the sale of the tractor in dispute were complied with or not, squarely fell within the ambit of Civil Court, for which the parties might approach the Civil Court
Tractor in question admittedly was neither a stolen one nor involved in the commission of any offence and the same, therefore could not have been seized under S.550, Cr.P.C.
Action of police, thus, was not only unlawful but depicted highhandedness and abuse of authority-- Shops given by the petitioner in lieu of the tractor had been rented out by the respondent who was enjoying their rent and besides an amount of Rs.1,11,000 had also been received by him from the petitioner-- Respondent was directed to hand over the tractor to the petitioner in circumstances
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and the same was accepted accordingly. M. Saleem Shad, Advocate Supreme Court and Abdul Latif, Sub-Inspector for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Rashid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court for respondent No.
1. M. Saleem Shad, Advocate Supreme Court and Abdul Latif, Sub‑Inspector for the State. Date of hearing: 21st March, 2003. . JAVED IQBAL, J.‑‑--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 11‑9‑2002 passed by the learned Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, whereby criminal petition preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that the possession of the tractor bearing No.3841/MNK was taken by the police under section 550, Cr.P.C. from the custody of petitioner by whom it was purchased from respondent No.1 in lieu of two shops and an amount of Rs.1,11,000 which has been admitted by the respondent. The custody of tractor in question was subsequently given to the respondent. Abdul Latif, Sub‑Inspector is present and submitted that neither the tractor in question was stolen one nor involved in the commission of any offence. It is not understandable that how and why the tractor was seized by the police under section 550, Cr.P.C. which only provides as under:‑‑ "
550. Powers to Police to seize property suspected to be stolen.‑‑Any Police Officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. Such Police Officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer. "
3. In view of the above the question of title of the tractor and whether the conditions enumerated in the alleged executed agreement concerning the sale of tractor in question were complied with or otherwise squarely falls within the ambit of Civil Court. The parties may approach the Civil Court if so desired for the redressal of their grievances. As mentioned hereinabove that the tractor in question could not have been seized under section 550, Cr.P.C. and thus, the action of police is not only unlawful but depicts highhandedness and abuse of authority. It is worthwhile to mention here that the shops given by the petitioner have been rented out by Nazar Hussain (respondent No.1) who is enjoying the rent of the said shops and besides that an amount of Rs.1,11,000 was also received by him. Nazar Hussain (respondent No. 1) is present and directed to hand over the tractor in question to Hassan Muhammad (petitioner) immediately. Abdul Latif, Sub‑Inspector of Police is also present and is hereby directed to get the order implemented in letter and spirit.
4. We are inclined to convert this petition into appeal which is accepted in the above terms. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall not affect the question of title to be determined by the Civil Court. N.H.Q./H‑86/S Appeal accepted.