| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1975 SLG 3031 = 1975 SLD 3031 = 1975 PLD 45 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Revision No. 1016 of 1973, decided on 2nd May 1974.
Presented By: Ataullah Sajjad, J
Ch. Azim-ud-Din for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Saeed for
Respondent. Abdus Sattar Najam, A. A: G. and Nur Muhammad Butt for A. G. for the State.
Criminal Revision No. 1016 of 1973, decided on 2nd May 1974.
Presented By: Ataullah Sajjad, J
Ch. Azim-ud-Din for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Saeed for
Respondent. Abdus Sattar Najam, A. A: G. and Nur Muhammad Butt for A. G. for the State.
JALAL KHAN alias JALLEY KHAN-Petitioner
VERSUS
THE STATE AND ANOTHER-Respondents
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 520, 517
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) Ss. 520 & 517-Expression "Any Court of appeal, confirmation, reference or revision" in S. 520-Not necessarily limited to Court before which an appeal or revision is pending-Section 520 gives super visory powers to Courts of appeal or revision independently of fact whether or not an appeal or revision in substantive case pending. The words "Court of appeal or revision" occurring in section 520, Cr. P. C. are not necessarily limited to a Court before which an appeal or revision is pending. Section 520, Cr. P. C. gives supervisory powers to the Courts of appeal or revision to correct the errors of Courts below in respect of orders passed with regard to stolen property, independently of the fact whether or not an appeal or revision in the substantive case is pending. An appeal as such is not contemplated by section 520, Cr. P. C. but the section does give a right to a person aggrieved by an order under section 517, Cr. P. C. to approach a Court of appeal or revision by way of an applica tion to seek relief. Ghulam Ali v. Emperor A I R 1945 Lah. 47 ; Sardara v. Boota P L D 1950 Lah. 97 ; Ghulam Akbar v. The State P L D 1958 Lah. 212 ; Ahmad Bakhsh v. State and another P L D 1966 Lah. 918 and The State v. Darshan Lal and another P L D 1972 Kar. 548 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 517-Restoration of property under S. 517-Application for Limitation-No period prescribed-Order of disposal could be passed simultaneously at conclusion of trial or at a later date-Contention that order of disposal of property should be passed contemporaneously with announcement of orders in original case-Not correct. No period of limitation was prescribed for an application for restora tion of property under section 517, Cr. P. C. and such an application could be made within a reasonable time from the date on which an accused person is acquitted of the crime with which he is charged. Section 517 gives jurisdiction to the Court to pass necessary orders for the disposal of property either at the time of the conclusion of the trial or at a later date. Section 517 casts a duty on the Court to make some order…