Lawyers Directory Listing
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.
Writ Petition No. 1377 of 1972, dec14ed on 9th July 1973.
‑‑‑ S. 523‑Property, seizure of‑Police rounding up petitioner's cattle without indicating reasonable suspicion of such cattle being stolen‑Report of such seizure not submitted to Magistrate al required under S. 523, Cr. P. C.--‑Seizure and retention of cattle, in circumstances, held, illegal‑property restored to petitioner.
Qureshi Mahmood Ahmed and Ch. M. Abdul Salim for Petitioner.
Respondent in person.
Date of hearing : 3rd July 1976.
This writ petition is divested against C. I. A. Staff and challenges the legality of the proceedings leading no the recovery of eight heads of cattle from the cable‑shed of the petitioner on 26‑9‑1972. It is stated that on 26‑9‑1972 the respondent, Incharge of the C. I. A. Staff, Jaranwala, came to the cattle‑shed of the petitioner and recovered eight heads of cattle and took them into possession. There was no case registered nor there existed any tangible suspicion with regard to the cattle being stolen property. It was kept by the respondent with him when the petition was filed on 5‑10‑1972. Notice issued to the respondent to appear and he did appear on 10‑ 10‑1972 and made a statement that he had recovered the property as a stolen property, that recovery had not been reported to the Magistrate as required under section 523, Cr. P. C. and that instead a notice had issued under Chapter 23, Rule 1.18 of the Police Rules.
2. There is no written statement filed by the respondent nor has he turned up to contest the proceedings finally when they came up for hearing there is no indication that he had reasonable suspicion of the property being stolen property. He did not follow the law after making such seizure inasmuch as he failed to follow the law applicable and contained in section 523 Cr. P. C. The seizure of the cattle was therefore illegal and so was the retention of the cattle by the respondent in his possession without resorting the same to the Magistrate. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed with costs. The property recovered to be restored to the person from whom recovery has been made. If any case has been registered after the recovery of the stolen property from the petitioner the respondent would be free to deal with the property covered by such a case in accordance with law.
Petition allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer