| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1971 SLG 768 1971 SLD 768 1971 PCRLJ 391 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Revision Application No. 48 of 1970, 25th May, 1970
MUHAMMAD HAQAT, JUNEJO, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Criminal Revision Application No. 48 of 1970, 25th May, 1970
MUHAMMAD HAQAT, JUNEJO, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Jaffer
VS
The State And Anothers
Law:
Section:
Keywords: Order, Procedure, Custody, Evidence, Stolen Property, Information, Disposal, Set Aside, Disposed Of, Merits Of The Case, Petitioner, Magistrate, Claims, Surety, Jurisdiction, Property, Petition, Theft, Possession, Presumption Result: Application allowed JUDGMENT This revision petition under section 439, Cr. P. C. Which relates to the disposal of a silver necklace under section 523, Cr. P. C. Has arisen in the following circumstances: 2. On 14-6-1969 Police went to the house of petitioner Jaffar and secured the silver necklace which is the subject-matter of this petition on search from his house. As they suspected it to be stolen property it was produced before the Head Munshi and Third Class Magistrate, Naushahuro Feroze, who issued the usual proclamations inviting claims in respect thereof. The petitioner filed his application of claim and produced to witnesses who were examined on 30-6-1969. On the basis of this evidence the Court ordered that the property should be given to the petitioner on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs. 500.00. The next day, however, one Riaysat Ali respondent No. 2 in this petition also filed his claim in respect of the same necklace. He was examined and he produced to other witnesses, namely, Khurshid his brother and Suleman servant of his father in support of his claim. The learned Magistrate thereafter passed another order dated 24-3-70 on which the necklace was given to the respondent 3. Mr. Memon, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Magistrate had ho jurisdiction to revise his earlier order. Mr. Sikandar Ali the learned counsel for respondent No. 2, however, contends that this order did not amount to review of the earlier order. I need not go into this question as on the merits of the case I have no doubt whatsoever that the learned Magistrate's order is erroneous and must be 4. The learned Magistrate has discarded the evidence of Jaffar and his witnesses simply by saying that he is not prepared to believe this evidence. The learned Magistrate stated that he did not believe Qadir Bux as he was a person connected with Jaffar. The evidence of Zilladar was discarded on the ground that…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492