P L D 1967 Karachi 607 (PLP)
ABDUL HAQUE‑Applicant Versus MASOOD JAN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1967 Karachi 607 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL HAQUE‑Applicant Versus MASOOD JAN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1967 Karachi 607 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1967 Karachi 607 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1967 Karachi 607 (PLP) (ABDUL HAQUE‑Applicant Versus MASOOD JAN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Hakim for Respondent No. 1.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 517‑Restoration of property‑Case under S. 379, Penal Code (XLV of 1860), in respect of a truck‑Accused throughout contending and claiming himself to be owner of truck‑On his acquittal, property ordered to be returned to accused.
Judgment & Decree
Nooruddin Sarki for the State. Abdul Hakim for Respondent No.
1. Date of hearing: 20th June 1966. A case was instituted against the applicant under section 379, P. P. C. on the report of one Muhammad Bux. The allegation was that the applicant removed from the possession of Muhammad Bux, who is a car mechanic, a truck left with him by Masood Jan. The trial Court discharged the applicant under section 253(2), Cr. P. C. by order dated 22‑1‑1964 and also directed that the applicant be put in possession of the said truck. This order was set aside by the Sessions Judge of Jacobabad in revision applica tion filed by Masood Jan. The order of the Sessions Judge was upheld by this Court.
2. Consequently, the case went back to the trial Magistrate, who recorded the evidence and by his order dated 12‑11‑1964 acquitted the applicant and ordered that the truck should re restored to him. This order has been set aside by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jacbbabad by order dated 31‑3‑1965. The present application is directed against this order.
3. It is not denied by the learned counsel for Masood Jan that the truck in question was seized from the possession of the applicant Abdul Haque. The finding of the trial Court is that Abdul Haque did not commit any offence under section 379, P. P. C. in taking away the truck from the possession of Muhammad Bux. It may be noted that Adul Haque throughout had been contending that he was the owner of the truck. The proper order, on acquittal of Abdul Haque, was that the truck should be restored to his possession and this order was to fact made by the trial Court. The Additional Sessions Judge is clearly in error by directing that the truck be restored to the possession of Masood Jan.
4. For the above reasons, I set aside the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge and direct that Masood Jan deliver the truck in question to the applicant within two weeks. K. B. A. Application accepted.