Find a Lawyer

Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 266 of 1971 and 3 of 1972, decided on 22nd March 1972.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 1st November 1971, in Criminal Revision No. 818 of 1971).

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),

S. 517‑Disposal of crime property‑Court directing that vehicle (crime property) be kept in custody of police till question of title determined finally by a civil Court‑Held, discretion exercised properly in circumstances of case.

Central Co‑operative Bank Ltd., Sargodha v. Ahmad Bakhsh P L D 1970 S C 343 ref.

P. S. L. A. No. 266 of 1971

S. A. Saeed, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

P. S. L. A. No. 3 of 1972

Rana Muhammad Sarwar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Iqbal Ahmed Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 7th March 1972.

This order will dispose of Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 266 of 1971 and 3 of 1972, which arise from the order of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Revision No. 8 18 of 1971, dated the 1st November 1971. By this order, a learned Single Judge of the High Court has directed the parties to approach the civil Court for the decision of the title to the lorry in dispute and has further directed that till that decision the lorry in question will remain in the police custody.

According to the petitioners, on the 19th February 1969, Muhammad Yousuf sold his Bus No. LRR‑8181 to Ghulam Jilani for Rs. 44,000 by agreement, Exh. PD. Rs. 19,000 was paid by Ghulam Jilani towards the sale price and it was agreed between the parties that the balance amount will be paid to Muhammad Yousuf in monthly instalments of Rs. 2,000 each. Muhammad Yousuf admits that he has received Rs. 10,000 subsequently is five installments of Rs. 2,000 each. On the 2nd December 1969 Ghulam Jilani filed a complaint against Muhammad Yousuf and others under sections 388, 392 and 395; P. P. C. He alleged that of the 20th October 1969, at about 8‑30 p.m. he had parked his but in the general bus stand when Muhammad Yousuf accompanied b3 10/12 gunmen suddenly appeared there and forcibly removed the key of the bus from the bag of the complainant at pistol point. The learned Magistrate being not satisfied with the prime facie case, discharged the accused persons. Revision No. 818 of 1971 was filed against this order in the Lahore High Court which was also dismissed on the 1st November 1971. A reference was also made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, to the High Court which was accepted. The High Court directed that the vehicle shall continue to remain in the garage where it is already kept till the final determination of the question of its title, Whereupon, the learned counsel for the parties stated that it is not desirable to keep the vehicle in garage and agreed that as agreed upon between the parties before Mr. Justice Ghulam Safdar Shah, it may be allowed to remain in the custody of the police. The learned Single Judge accepted this suggestion and directed that in case the parties subsequently agreed to place it in a garage and share the expenses thereof, the Court will have no objection to it. Both the parties are dissatisfied by this order and seek permission to file an appeal against the order of the High Court dated the 1st November 1971.

Mr. S. A. Saeed, learned counsel for Mr. Ghulam Jilani and Rana Muhammad Sarwar, learned counsel for Muhammad Yousul have contended that the High Court should have restored the possession of the bus to the party who was entitled to it. It has been urged on behalf of Ghulam Jilani that he was the real owner of the bus in dispute and it should have been restored to him. On the other hand it has been urged on behalf of Muhammad Yousuf that the bus in dispute was given on hire purchase system and after Ghulam Jilani has failed to pay the balance of the amount the bus was recovered from his possession and it should have been restored to him. Both the parties have relied on a decision of this Court in Central Co‑operative Bank Ltd., Sargodha v. Ahmad Bakhsh (PLD1970SC343). The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed me. It will be noticed that the question whether the property in dispute should be restored to any of the parties is a discretionary matter. After going through the impugned order I am satisfied that the High Court has exercised the discretion properly. There is disputed question of fact and law involved in this matter and the best course in the present case is that the parties should approach the civil Court for the determination of their title in respect of the vehicle in dispute. No case has been made out to interfere in this matter. The petitions are dismissed:

Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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