2006 P Cr (PLP)
ALLIED ENGINEERING AND SERVICES LTD. — petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Shariat Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ALLIED ENGINEERING AND SERVICES LTD. — petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 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 2006 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Shariat Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 P Cr (PLP) (ALLIED ENGINEERING AND SERVICES LTD. — petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mehmood A. Qureshi for Petitioner.
- S.A. RABBANI, J.--- Mr. Mehmood A. Qureshi, Advocate submits that he had filed a revision before the High Court and ultimately he was told that the revision lies before this Court and that caused the delay. I am inclined to condone the delay. Order accordingly. C.M. is disposed of.
- Mr. Mehmood A. Qureshi, Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased a car from a Leasing Company and it was snatched from him by somebody, whereafter the car was recovered and. was given to the petitioner by Court, on `Superdari'. He submits that, during this period, he paid all instalments and the car was transferred and registered in the name of the petitioner. Mr. Qureshi contends that the petitioner wanted to sell the car for which he sought permission of the Court that had given the car on `Superdari' and the Court viz. 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South granted the permission vide order, dated 10-5-1994 subject to the condition that new owner should appear before the Court and bind himself to produce the said vehicle on the same terms and condition.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 516-A
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.392
Custody of vehicle on Superdari--Condition binding the new owner on the same Superdari terms not justified
Petitioner had purchased the car in question from a Leasing Company which had been snatched from him by somebody
After its recovery the car was given on Superdari by the Court to the petitioner, who during this period had paid all instalments and the car stood transferred and registered in his name
Petitioner wanted to sell the car and the Court vide the impugned order granted him such permission subject to the condition that new owner should appear before the Court and bind himself to produce the said car on the same terms and conditions
Admittedly, no case was pending before the Court in respect of the said car requiring its production before it and the imposed aforesaid condition, therefore, was not justified
Such condition imposed through the impugned order was consequently deleted
Revision petition was accepted accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous No.64-K of 2004 S.A. RABBANI, J.
Mr. Mehmood A. Qureshi, Advocate submits that he had filed a revision before the High Court and ultimately he was told that the revision lies before this Court and that caused the delay. I am inclined to condone the delay. Order accordingly. C.M. is disposed of. Criminal Revision No. 14-K of 2004 Mr. Mehmood A. Qureshi, Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased a car from a Leasing Company and it was snatched from him by somebody, whereafter the car was recovered and. was given to the petitioner by Court, on `Superdari'. He submits that, during this period, he paid all instalments and the car was transferred and registered in the name of the petitioner. Mr. Qureshi contends that the petitioner wanted to sell the car for which he sought permission of the Court that had given the car on `Superdari' and the Court viz. 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South granted the permission vide order, dated 10-5-1994 subject to the condition that new owner should appear before the Court and bind himself to produce the said vehicle on the same terms and condition. Mr. Qureshi contends that due to this condition, the purchaser has been called upon to bind himself to produce car before the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South, although no case is pending before that Court in respect of the said car. Mr. Arshad Lodhi, learned A.A.-G. concedes that the condition imposed is not called for in view of the fact that no case is pending in that Court that requires production of the car before the Court. In view of the fact that no case is pending before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South requiring production of the said car before the Court, the condition imposed was not justified. The revision is accordingly allowed and the condition for production of car imposed through the impugned order is deleted. N.H.Q./7/FSC Revision petition accepted.