Case Details

Citation(s)
1976 SLG 3031 = 1976 SLD 3031 = 1976 PLD 58
Lahore High Court
Criminal Revision No. 690 of 1975, heard on 18th September 1975.
Presented By: Gul Muhammad Khan, J
Khaild Mahmood for B. A. Saleemi for Appellant. Kh. M. Asghar for A: G. for the State. Aitezaz Ahsan for
Respondent No. 2.3 ~.

FAROOQ JAMIL-Petitioner

VERSUS

THE STAVE AND ANOTHER-Respondents

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 523

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 523-Disposal of seized property-Ownership of car in dispute-- Person from whom car recovered found entitled to its possession and documents on record also showing him as owner --Held, entitled to superdari of car.-[Superdari]. 1970 P Cr. L J 447 ; 1970 P Cr. L J 1253 ; 1970 P Cr. L J 875 ; Haji Muhammad Jamal Khan v. The State 1972 P Cr. L J 363 and 1971 P Cr. L J 352 ref. Date of hearing : 18th September 1975.                                                                                                                                                             JUDGMENT The parties to this petition are litigating about the custody of a car No. KAE-7045. Respondent No. 2 lodged an F. 1. R. with Police Station New Anarkali, Lahore, against the present petitioner and Begum Nasim Lal Shah Bokhari (mother-in-late- of the complainant) alleging that the petitioner had got transferred fraudulently the above mentioned car in his name with the connivance of Begum Nasim Lal Shah Bokhari. The police registered a case under sections 4201406/468 and 471: P. P. C. The police also took into custody the car. 2. The parties separately applied for its custody on Supardari under section 516/523, Cr. P. C. The matter was considered by Mr. Sarfraz Khan, Magistrate, Lahore, who vide his order dated the 18th August 1975 declined to allow the Sapurdari of the car to any of the parties, for the reason that it may be recklessly used and depreciated in value. He further observed that the parties may renew their applications on fresh grounds for grant of Sapurdari after the challan is submitted. Mr. Farooq Jamil has now come up to this Court praying that the impugned order which, according to him, is in violation of the provisions of section 523, Cr. P. C., may be…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register