Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

MUHAMMAD BUX versus THE STATE


Criminal Code of Conduct (CCPC) Section 7 51 51 The accused accused of property destruction was convicted under Section 111111, the PPC is filing an appeal and is praying for the delivery of the bills, the session judge said. Ordered that the bulls be taken from the complainant's possession. And placed in the cattle order of cattle, which are not in accordance with the law and kept separately

1969 P Cr. L J 609

[Karachi]

Before Illahi Bakhsh Khamisani, J

MUHAMMAD BUX‑Applicant

Versus

THE STATE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents

Criminal Revision No. 179 of 1966, decided on 22nd April 1968.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----

S. 517‑Disposal of property‑Accused convicted of offence under S. 411, P. P. C. filing appeal and making prayer for delivery to him of bullocks, subject‑matter of theft‑Sessions Judge passing order directing bullocks to be taken from possession of complainant and kept in cattle‑pound‑Order, held, not warranted by law and set aside.

Azizullah K. Shaikh for Applicant.

Usman Ghani Rashid for the State.

M. B. Mesawa for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing : 22nd April 1968.

JUDGMENT

This is a revision application against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Khairpur, dated 6th October 1966, regarding the disposal of property involved in an appeal filed by one imam Bux Junejo.

2. The admitted facts are that Imam Bux Junejo was tried and convicted for an offence under section 411, P. P. C. under a judgment given by Civil Judge and First Class Magistrate, Gambat, on 30th May 1966. Imam Bux filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge which was admitted to regular hearing. He also filed an application praying for the bullocks, the subject matter of theft, to be taken back from the complainant in the case and given over to him. The learned Sessions Judge then passed the impugned order directing the bullocks to be taken from the possession of the complainant and kept in a cattle‑pound equidistant from the villages of the complainant and the applicant. This order, in my view, is by no means permitted in law to be passed. The learned Judge, if he so desired, could have called upon the complainant to give security for keeping bullocks with himself. In view of the fact that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is not warranted by law, I set it aside. The bullocks shall continue to remain with the complainant. The revision application in these circumstances is allowed. The Sessions Judge is however competent to pass any order regarding final disposal of property at the time of disposal of the appeal.

Application allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
ask a advocate free from Neelam lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.