2005 PLP 1138 (SCMR)
WASEEM GONDAL — Petitioner Versus NAEEM SADIQ and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1138 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | WASEEM GONDAL — Petitioner Versus NAEEM SADIQ and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1138 (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 2005 PLP 1138 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1138 (SCMR) (WASEEM GONDAL — Petitioner Versus NAEEM SADIQ and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Munir Ahmed Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court with Mahmoodul Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Kausar Ali, A.S.-I. Police Post Model Town Kutchery, Lahore for Respondent No.3.
- Date of hearing: 2nd January, 2003.
- Munir Ahmed Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court with Mahmoodul Islam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Kausar Ali, A.S.‑I. Police Post Model Town Kutchery, Lahore for Respondent No.3.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 21-5-2001 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Writ Petition No.8456 of 2001).
S. 516-A
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.452/380/448/420/468/471/ 148/149
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Superdari of amount recovered during investigation
Petitioner secured amount on Superdari subject to its production before Court
Revisional Court set aside order of Superdari, against which Constitutional petition filed by petitioner's father was dismissed
Petitioner was living abroad and in spite of notice had never attended the Court-Petitioner had not honoured condition mentioned in the order of Superdari in spite of directions of the Revisional Court and High Curt- Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Munir Ahmed Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court with Mahmoodul Islam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.
1. Kausar Ali, A.S.‑I. Police Post Model Town Kutchery, Lahore for Respondent No.3. Date of hearing: 2nd January, 2003. TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.‑‑‑ This petition is directed against the order, dated 21‑5‑2001 of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Writ Petition No.8456 of 2001 filed by the petitioner was dismissed in limine being not maintainable as well as on the ground of, conduct of the petitioner demonstrated by him, subsequent to the Superdari order secured on 4‑3‑2000 from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Section 30, Lahore. The facts briefly narrated for the disposal of this petition are that F.I.R. No.41 of 2000 was registered under sections 452/380/448/420/468/471/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Naseer Abad, District Lahore. During investigation, US $ 9,000 were recovered. The petitioner, Waseem Gondal, made an application on 4‑3‑2000 praying for Superdari of the above amount. The Judicial Magistrate, on the same day, allowed the Superdari subject to production of above amount before the Court. The same was assailed by respondent No.1 through Criminal Revision No. 135 of 2000, which was accepted by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, through his order, dated 21‑3‑2001. The above order was challenged by Ch. Ghazanfar Ali Gondal, father of the present petitioner, through the above writ petition, which has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, through his order, dated 21‑5‑2001, impugned herein. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal. We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire material placed on record with their assistance. We do not want to dilate on the merits of the case as this exercise may prejudice the case of either party. However, one thing is very clear from the documents on record that conduct of the petitioner was not above board. The learned revisional Court as well as the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court H directed the petitioner to come forward and honour the condition mentioned in the Superdari order. The documents demonstrate that he is living abroad and in spite of notice he never attended the Court. The order of Superdari was passed about three years back and till today the petitioner has not honoured the direction of the Courts. In these circumstances, we do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order. Resultantly, the instant petition being devoid of any merit and force is hereby dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./W‑44/S Leave refused.