YLR 2005

2005 PLP 2864 (YLR)

DEWAN HASHMAT HAYAT — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 3 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Writ Petition No.1064 of 2005, decided on 26th May, 2005.
Honorable Judges
Abdul Shakoor Paracha, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2005 PLP 2864 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Abdul Shakoor Paracha, J
Parties DEWAN HASHMAT HAYAT — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 3 others — Respondents
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 2864 (YLR)?

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 2864 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Shakoor Paracha, J.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 2864 (YLR) (DEWAN HASHMAT HAYAT — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Pervaiz Inayat Malik for Petitioner.
  • Date of hearing: 26th May, 2005.
  • 4. The learned Assistant Advocate-General contends that the petitioner was the complainant of the aforesaid case F.I.R. No.74 of 2003, registered at Police Station, Jalalpur Sharif with the allegation that the accused damaged the vehicle in addition to the household effects; the vehicle was taken from the possession of the petitioner and is in the custody of Police Station, Jalalpur; there is no other claimant of the vehicle.

Headnotes / Summary

Ss. 516-A & 517

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 380, 440, 136, 147 & 149

Superdari of vehicle

Petition for

Vehicle in question owned and possessed by petitioner, was allegedly damaged in an occurrence regarding which F.I.R. on the complaint of petitioner was registered under Ss. 380, 440, 136, 147 & 149, P.P.C. and vehicle was taken into custody by police as case property from petitioner and was in police custody

Vehicle was recovered and taken into custody from petitioner and there was no other claimant of said vehicle

Mere fact that ownership of vehicle still stood in the name of previous owner from whom petitioner had purchased the same and that tax of vehicle was not paid, was no ground to refuse release of vehicle on Superdari to petitioner

Vehicle should have been returned to petitioner from whom it was recovered

Accepting petition of petitioner, S.H.O. concerned was directed to release vehicle and hand over its possession to petitioner or any person authorized by him. Tanvir Iqbal, A.A.-G. for the State.

Judgment & Decree

Vehicle Pajero bearing No.3507/BC, Karachi-Sindh was owned and possessed by petitioner Dewan Hashmat Hayat. It is alleged that the said vehicle was damaged in an occurrence, regarding which case F.I.R. No.74 of 2003 dated 11-7-2003 on the complaint of the petitioner-complainant under sections 136/440/380/149/147, P.P.C. was registered at Police Station, Jalalpur, District Jhelum. The vehicle was taken into custody by the police as case property from the complainant-petitioner in the above said F.I.R. and is presently in Police Station, Jalalpur Sharif. The petitioner is behind the bars in another murder case.

2. The application for grant of Superdari was disallowed by the trial Court/Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Police Station, Jalalpur Sharif, District Jhelum vide order dated 8-4-2004, and the revision petition filed there against by the petitioner also failed as it was dismissed on 7-3-2005 by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jhelum, on the ground that the tax has not been paid against the said vehicle after December, 1994. It has been further observed that Abdul Malik son of Haji Syed Nazar is owner of the vehicle in dispute and till the date of order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge the petitioner is not registered as owner of the vehicle.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the ownership of the vehicle is not in dispute; if the tax is not paid, that is matter between the petitioner and the department concerned; the vehicle was recovered and taken into custody from the petitioner; there was no other claimant of the vehicle; the mere fact that ownership still stands in the name of the previous owner from whom the petitioner purchased the vehicle was no ground not to release the same on Superdari to the petitioner.

4. The learned Assistant Advocate-General contends that the petitioner was the complainant of the aforesaid case F.I.R. No.74 of 2003, registered at Police Station, Jalalpur Sharif with the allegation that the accused damaged the vehicle in addition to the household effects; the vehicle was taken from the possession of the petitioner and is in the custody of Police Station, Jalalpur; there is no other claimant of the vehicle.

5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The vehicle bearing No.3507-BC, Karachi-Sindh, which the petitioner purchased from the previous owner Abdul Malik son of Haji Syed Nazar, was taken into possession in the case F.I.R. No.74, which was got registered by the complainant. The vehicle was damaged in addition to the household effects. Said vehicle was taken into custody by the Police Station, Jalalpur Sharif in the above-mentioned case. There is no other claimant of the vehicle. The vehicle was taken into custody from the petitioner, so under the law the same should have been returned to the person from whom it was recovered, i.e. the petitioner.

6. This being so, I accept this petition and direct respondent No.4 S.H.O. to release the Vehicle No.3507-BC and hand over its possession to the petitioner or any other person authorized by him by executing a power of attorney duly attested by the jail authorities. With this direction the petition is disposed of. H.B:T./D-31/L Petition accepted.