1982 PLP 756 (SCMR)
SANAULLAH-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD FAYYAZ AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 756 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SANAULLAH-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD FAYYAZ AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 756 (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 1982 PLP 756 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 756 (SCMR) (SANAULLAH-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD FAYYAZ AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jari Ullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Abdul Karim for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 15th March, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order dated 19-4-1981 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi passed in Criminal Revision No. 36 of 1981). --S. 517 read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3) Custody of property-Magistrate as well as High Court basing order with regard to superdari on certain documents and material appearing to support respondent's case prima facie-Order being a regulatory order involving no question of law as such and case being still at investigation stage, interference declined and leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFI‑UR‑REHMAN, J.‑The petitioner who is an accused of the offences under sections 406/420, 468/471, P. P. C. on the basis of an F. I. R. registered on 12‑11‑1980 seeks leave to appeal against the order of the High Court made on 19‑4‑1981 with regard to the custody of a :wagon bearing registration No. L E U 3323.
2. The petitioner is accused of having prepared certain fictitious docu ments with a view to showing credit of Rs. 60,000 in the account of the respondent on 5-11‑1978 and to have obtained on its basis the transfer of the vehicle. On discovery of the fraud played, the respondent got registered a case against the petitioner. The question of the superdari of the vehicle came up before the Assistant Commissioner, Kharian who on 22‑11‑1980 handed it over to the respondent against surety of Rs. 1,00;
000. On appeal the Additional Sessions Judge on 21‑3‑1981 directed that the vagon be given in superdari to the petitioner. The High Court restored the order of the Assistant Commissioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was evidence on the police file, which showed that on 2‑12‑1976 the account of the respondent was credited by the petitioner by depositing a sum of Rs. 60,000 and the transfer letter was also in his name. The petitioner therefore was better entitled to be handed over on superdari this wagon. Besides, it is con tended that the condition imposed by the Magistrate has not been complied with by the respondent while obtaining the superdari of the vehicle.
4. The allegation of cheating and forgery etc. pertain to the document and events of 5‑11‑1978 and not to what happened on 2‑12‑
78. The learned magistrate as well as the learned Judge in the High Court based the order with regard to superdari on certain documents and material, which appeared to them to support prima facie the case of the respondent. At this stage, in such a regulatory order where no question of law as such arises and the case as still at the investigation stage we would not like to interfere. Leave to appeal is therefore refused. However, this will not preclude the petitioner from repeating his claim if and. when sufficient material is available in support of his own contention and in repudiation of that of the respondent. Petition dismissed.