1993 PLP 280 (MLD)
GHULAM NAZIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL KHALIQ and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1993 PLP 280 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Raja Afrasiab Khan, J |
| Parties | GHULAM NAZIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL KHALIQ and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 280 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 280 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Raja Afrasiab Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 280 (MLD) (GHULAM NAZIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL KHALIQ and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Muhammad Yousuf for Petitioner.
- Zafar Pasha Chaudhary for Respondent No.1.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss.561‑A & 516‑A‑‑‑Finding of fact had been given by Sessions Court in revision petition filed by petitioner that the national identity card and transfer letter pertaining to vehicle produced and relied upon by him were not genuine‑‑‑Petition having no substance was dismissed accordingly. Farooq Bedar. Addl. A.‑G. with Qazi M. Latif for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Ss.561‑A & 516‑A‑‑‑Finding of fact had been given by Sessions Court in revision petition filed by petitioner that the national identity card and transfer letter pertaining to vehicle produced and relied upon by him were not genuine‑‑‑Petition having no substance was dismissed accordingly. Kh. Muhammad Yousuf for Petitioner. Farooq Bedar. Addl. A.‑G. with Qazi M. Latif for the State. Zafar Pasha Chaudhary for Respondent No.1. Ghulam Nazir son of Janab Shah, petitioner has challenged the validity of the order having been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore dated 20‑1‑1992 in his criminal revision. Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his said order upheld the order passed by the learned District Magistrate, Lahore whereby he approved the enquiry report submitted by the learned Magistrate 1st Class dated 28‑6‑1988 about the ownership of Vehicle No.3072/PRF with its present N0LHH/4552. Learned revisional Court came to the conclusion after hearing the parties that the national identity and of the petitioner and the transfer letter issued in his favour were fake documents. After discussing the entire matter in depth learned Judge Dismissed the revision petition of the present petitioner. 2.An objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Law Officer that this petition under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. was not competent because the impugned order was passed by the learned Court below under section 435/439, Cr.P.C.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have also read the impugned order. A dear finding has been given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the documents produced and relied upon by the petitioner were not genuine. This being so, the petitioner cannot claim the ownership of the vehicle on the basis of forged documents. Admittedly the custody of the vehicle in question is with Abdul Khaliq, respondent No.1. It is contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that he is bona fide purchaser of the vehicle for valuable consideration. Be that as it may, a finding of fact has been given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the national identity card and transfer letter pertaining to the vehicle in question, produced and relied upon by the petitioner were not genuine. There is thus no substance in the petition, which is dismissed. N.H.Q./G‑67/L Petition dismissed.