2007 PLP 1256 (YLR)
Chaudhry GHULAM HAIDER — Petitioner Versus SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.III, LAHORE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1256 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sharif and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ |
| Parties | Chaudhry GHULAM HAIDER — Petitioner Versus SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.III, LAHORE and another — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1256 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1256 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khawaja Muhammad Sharif and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1256 (YLR) (Chaudhry GHULAM HAIDER — Petitioner Versus SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.III, LAHORE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- N. A. Butt for Petitioner.
- Tahir Mehmood Gondal, A.A.-G. for Respondents with Muhammad Arif, S.-I with record.
Judgment & Decree
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.
This writ petition pertains to the matter of superdari of a motorcar (Honda Civic) bearing Registration No.LZD 9903 which had been taken into custody by the local police as case property in connection with case F.I.R. No.737 registered at. Police Station Sattokatla, District Lahore on 10-11-2005 in respect of offences under sections 302/324/34/109/120-B, P.P.C. and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The petitioner had submitted an application seeking superdari of the said motorcar but that' application of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-III, Lahore vide order dated 31-3-2006. Hence, the present petition before this Court.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record we have observed that according to the prosecution the motorcar in issue had been used by the accused party for coming to and going away from the place of occurrence. The law is quite settled by now that a vehicle used only for coining to and going away from the place of occurrence cannot be treated as case-property. A reference in this respect may made to the cases of Humanyn Azam v. Ch. Sadiq Inspector/ S.H.O. of Police Station Kunjah District Gujrat and 3 others (1999 MLD 1676) and Javed Hayat and another v. The State (PLD 2006 Lahore 167) (DB). It is not disputed that the petitioner is a registered owner of the relevant motorcar and he is the only person who has come forward so far to claim superdari of the same. The said motorcar is stated to be parked in the premises of a Police Station ever-since its recovery and it requires no straining of imagination to infer that its condition must be deteriorating day by day.
4. For what has' been discussed above, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-III, Lahore on 31-3-2006 is set aside by declaring the same as without lawful authority and of no legal effect, the application submitted by the petitioner seeking superdari of the relevant motorcar is accepted and the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court III, Lahore is directed to release the said motorcar on superdari in favour of the petitioner upon suitable terms. There shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./G-1/L Petition allowed.