Section 516 policemen applied for a carriage of an undercover vehicle after which robbery was also used and after the killing of two policemen during the encounter, the applicant filed a petition in the trial court under section 516A. Was transferred. CCP, but the same was rejected by the applicant who claimed that he had given his driver (the accused) to drive like a private taxi, so, if any vehicle was misused by the applicants. If so, there was nothing wrong with that. That it was his only source of income, and that the car was lying in a police station and parts of it were erased by policemen, the validity record shows that the applicant was the owner of the vehicle and its driver, Other people had, too. No one except the applicant came forward to claim the vehicle, so there was no good reason why the applicant could be denied custody of his vehicle, especially when the prosecution Had not yet proven that the vehicle was in contact with the owner of the driver, who was unaware of when the trial was to end, so indefinitely. Maintaining a car at the police station reduces its cost and reduces its potential for misuse and damage, The trial case was set aside for the court and on the pass, the applicant was allowed to restore the vehicles. According to the dates of the e-vehicle hearing when the trial court is required and the trial court
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2012
