Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ARSHAD versus MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ

Section 17 (3) of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Section 365 Revision Seized Vehicle During the trial of the trial by the trial court, the accused was also ordered to be found guilty and to confiscate the vehicle allegedly used in the fine. Neither notice was issued nor petitioner was passed before passing the impugned order, nor was there any attempt by the trial court to ascertain who was the owner of the vehicle. Before deciding whether the vehicle was liable to be confiscated or not, the trial court gave notice to the vehicle owner or the claimant, whoever it was, asking why he did not confiscate the vehicle. Because the vehicle had no claimants and ownership was not disputed by the accused, loss of service of the owner's search and notice about the applicant Was unreasonable, the trial court had failed to adopt a proper procedure and D passed an injunction to seize the vehicle without the opportunity of hearing from the affected person and consequently the vehicle was seized. The case was referred to the trial court with the consent of the parties. Law online advocate from Malakwal lawyer