Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No. 93 of 1969, decided on 19th February 1971.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 23rd February 1966, in Writ Petition No. 704 of 1958).

Constitution of Pakistan (1962),

Art. 98 and Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ch, XLIII‑Criminal trial‑Disposal of property on conclusion of trial‑Articles claimed to have been wrongly seized but never produced before Court‑Magistrate could not, in such circumstance, make any order in respect of disposal of such articles‑Party aggrieved may go to civil Court and seek relief there‑Writ petition not competent.

S. A. Saeed, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim Sheikh, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.

M. A. Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 19th February 1971.

SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑

This appeal by special leave is from an order of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan, dismissing a petition under Article 170 of the Constitution of 1956.

Certain articles had been seized from the possession of the appellants in connection with a criminal case under sec tions 408/409/380/411 of the Pakistan Penal Code, instituted against. them by the Vice‑President of the Central Co‑operative Bank, Sialkot. The case ended to the acquittal of the appellants on 2‑7‑1954, whereupon they successively 'applied to the Magistrates concerned for return of the articles seized from them, and although at one stage they were ordered to be returned to the appellants, the articles were never returned.

Relying upon a report of the Superintendent of Police that the articles claimed by the appellants had already been delivered to the officer incharge of Arya School Government Dump.

In pursuance of an order of the Additional District Magistrate, the High Court held that it was obvious that the articles in question had already been disposed of and could not be restored to the petitioners. The Court further observed that in these circumstances the only and proper remedy open to the petitioner was to go to the civil Court for relief, and that a writ was not an appropriate proceeding for this.

Leave to appeal has been granted to consider the questions whether the provisions is Chapter XLIII of the Criminal Procedure Code are adequate enough to provide for the disposal of the property after the conclusion of a trial in a criminal Court and whether the Magistrates acted illegally in refusing to exercise their jurisdiction thereunder.

It, however, appears from ground No. II of the concise statement put in on behalf of appellant Fazal Karim and ground No. 1 of the concise statement put in on behalf of the respondent that the articles in question were never produced before a Court of law. If that be so, how could the Magistrates under Chapter XLIII of the Criminal Procedure make any order in respect of the disposal of such articles.

If the articles in question had been wrongfully taken or detained it was open to the appellants to go to the civil Court for relief within the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act. No writ petition in any event was available to him.

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed, but having regard to the facts of the case, we make no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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