PCRLJ 2014

2014 P Cr (PLP)

BASHIRAN BIBI — Petitioner Versus CITY POLICE OFFICER, FAISALABAD and 5 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
2013-December-5
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2014 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members N/A
Parties BASHIRAN BIBI — Petitioner Versus CITY POLICE OFFICER, FAISALABAD and 5 others — Respondents
Primary Law (b) Police Order (22 of 2002), (a) Police Order (22 of 2002)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 P Cr (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: (b) Police Order (22 of 2002), (a) Police Order (22 of 2002) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2014 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 P Cr (PLP) (BASHIRAN BIBI — Petitioner Versus CITY POLICE OFFICER, FAISALABAD and 5 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(b) Police Order (22 of 2002) (a) Police Order (22 of 2002)

Representation

  • Rai Salah ud Din Kharal for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

Art. 134

Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199

Constitutional petition

Power of police to make inventory of unclaimed property, etc.

Scope

Police took away cattle from petitioner's house claiming that same belonged to two accused persons of an F.I.R. who had absconded

Petitioner was the only claimant of the cattle

Nothing on record suggested that cattle belonged to the two proclaimed offenders except statement of police officials, who themselves failed to arrest the absconders

Petitioner had been moving from pillar to post for the cattle

No inquiry was conducted by concerned City Police Officer (CPO) to ascertain ownership of cattle

Constitutional petition was disposed of with the direction to CPO to call the concerned Station House Officer (SHO), take the cattle back from him and hand them over to the petitioner on her personal bond and also decide about the compensation, if any, to the petitioner

High Court further directed that an inquiry should be conducted against culprit/police officials who illegally detained the cattle without following the procedure prescribed under law.

Judgment & Decree

ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J.

The petitioner, through this Constitutional Petition, seeks the act of the respondents for removal of cattle of the petitioner from her Haveli under Article 134 of Police Order, 2002 and for the return of the same to the petitioner.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are that on 4-6-2012 the local police of Police Station Khurrarianwala visited the house of the petitioner and took away animals i.e. 5 buffaloes, a cow etc. from her Haveli to the police station. Meanwhile, the petitioner moved an application for superdari of the cattle in which the learned Judicial Magistrate requisitioned the report wherein the stand was taken by the police that cattle were removed under section 134 of Police Order, 2002 as the same belonging to Muhammad Yar son of Allah Ditta and Muhammad Sabir son of Shahamat accused persons and absconders of F.I.R. No.289 dated 26-4-2010, under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, P.P.C. and F.I.R. No.350 of 2012 dated 3-6-2012 under sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Khurrarianwala, the petitioner then withdrew the application.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the police has no jurisdiction to remove the cattle under Article 134 of the Police Order, 2002 which is not an unclaimed property and belongs to the petitioner; that earlier Writ Petition No.22675 of 2012 filed by the petitioner was withdrawn on 24-10-2012 for the time being, hence prays for the relief.

4. Report was requisitioned from SHO, Police Station, Khurrarianwala District Faisalabad who stated that the petitioner has no concern with the cattle and on his earlier application DSP, inquired the matter and concluded that she was not the owner; that earlier petition filed by the petitioner was withdrawn and the second petition is not competent.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the available record.

6. Under Article 134 of the Police Order, 2002 the police is empowered to make inventory of unclaimed property which shall be sent to the C.P.O who will issue proclamation within a fortnight requiring for the claimant to establish his claim within three months. Such property, on satisfaction of its title, shall be given to such a person. However, in the instant case it is not denied that the petitioner is the only claimant of the cattle. Moreover, there is nothing to suggest that same belonged to two proclaimed 'offenders except the statement of the police officials, who themselves had failed to arrest the absconders in the said two F.I.Rs. On the other hand, the record reveals that the petitioner has been moving from pillar to post for the cattle. It is also noted that as per report and comments, recently no inquiry was conducted by the CPO concerned to ascertain the ownership of the said property. In this view of the matter, while following the view taken in Roshan Ali v. SHO reported as (2011 YLR 1609), this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the C.P.O, Faisalabad to call the concerned SHO, take the cattle back from him and hand them over to the petitioner on her personal bond being the only claimant. An inquiry shall also be conducted against the culprits who illegally detained the said cattle without following the procedure prescribed under the law. The C.P.O. shall also decide about the compensation if any to the petitioner. The final outcome of the report shall be submitted to this Court through Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court till 15-4-2014. MWA/B-2/L Petition allowed.