Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 2851 2004 SLD 2851 2004 PCRLJ 78
Federal Shariat Court
Criminal Revision No. 3/Q of 2003, decided on 26th June,2003. Date of hearing: 26th June, 2003.
CH. EJAZ YOUSAF, CHIEF, JUSTICE
Tahir Hussain Khan for PetitionerGhulam Mustafa Mengal, Addl. A.G. for the State.

ZAMAN ERVSTHE STATE --Respondent

Law: Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979

Section: 17(3)

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 365

(a) Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979) -S. 17(3) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365 Revision �Confiscation of the vehicle by the Trial Court Validity Trial Court while convicting and sentencing the accused for the offences charged with had also ordered for confiscation of the vehicle allegedly used in the crime Neither any notice before passing the impugned order was issued or served on the petitioner, nor any attempt was made by the Trial Court to find out as to who was owner of the vehicle Before proceeding to decide as to whether the vehicle was liable to confiscation or not it was incumbent on the Trial Court to have served notice on the owner of the vehicle or the claimant, whosoever he was, calling upon him to show cause as to why the vehicle be not confiscated Since there was no claimant of the vehicle and its ownership was not disputed by the accused persons, there was no need to search for the owner and service of notice upon the petitioner was a must Trial Court had failed to adopt the proper procedure and had passed the impugned order without affording opportunity of hearing to the affected person Order of Trial Court to the extent of confiscation of the vehicle was consequently set aside and the case was remanded to the Trial Court with consent of parties for its decision afresh in accordance with law.Haji Abdul Razzak v. Pakuta PLD 1974 SC 5; Iqbal Elahi v. The State 1987 SCMR 1274; Muhammad Yousaf v. The State 1998 MLD 755 and Haji Ziauddin v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 1213 ref.(b) Natural justice, principles of --Audi alteram partem Discretion to deprive a person of his property has to be exercised in a judicial manner having regard to the legal maxim "audi alteram partem" (nobody should be condemned unheard) and the person affected has to be served with a notice to show cause before any action is taken against him.Haji Abdul Razzak v. Pakuta PLD 1974 SC 5; Iqbal Elahi v. The State 1987 SCMR 1274; Muhammad Yousaf v. The State 1998 MLD 755 and Haji Ziauddin v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 1213 ref.THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: CH. EJAZ YOUSAF:---.---This revision is directed against the judgment, dated 17 5 2003 passed by…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register