1986 PLP (1) (SCMR)
Malik MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE — Petitioner Versus TEHSEEN QURESHI — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP (1) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Malik MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE — Petitioner Versus TEHSEEN QURESHI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP (1) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP (1) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP (1) (SCMR) (Malik MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE — Petitioner Versus TEHSEEN QURESHI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Ishaq, Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Siddiqi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 28th June, 1986.
- Sardar Muhammad Ishaq, Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 16-4-1986 in Writ Petition No. 442 of 1984).
Art. 185(3)--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 516-A--Leave to appeal, grant of--Criminal proceedings--Dispute whether respondent was bona fide purchaser of car or not--Superdari of car given to respondent from whom it was taken into possession--Order challenged- Fact that car was taken into possession from respondent supported impugned order which was held unexceptionable in circumstances--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑ Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 16‑4‑1986 of the Lahore High Court; whereby the Superdari of a car during the pendency of criminal proceedings has been ordered to be given over to Tehseen Qureshi respondent No.1. Admittedly, the car was taken into possession from Tehseen. He claimed to have purchased the same. There is dispute whether he was a bona fide purchaser or not. The fact that the car was taken into possession from him goes to support the order passed by the High Court. It is unexceptionable in the circumstances of this case. No justification has been made out for interference. This petition accordingly, is dismissed M . I . Petition dismissed