Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 312 of 1976, decided on 25th January 1977.

---S. 520 read with S. 439‑Mere agreement to sell a bus‑Cannot amount to its transfer in name of would‑be buyer Petitioner yet to establish his ownership and entitlement to possession of bus‑Order of trial Court vacating order of superdari, held, not illegal, in circumstances.

Walayat Umar Chaudhry for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 25th January 1977.

This order would dispose of Criminal Revision filed by Allah Ditta, against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lyallpur, dated 29‑9‑1975, whereby the appeal filed by Allah Ditta, against the order of learned Magistrate dated 30‑5‑1975, was dismissed.

2. A case under sections 379, 411, P. P. C. was registered at u1ice Station, Jaranwala, on the statement of Ch. Abdur Razzaq, Advocate. It was with regard to the theft of his Bus No. LR 8890, Model 1967. Challan was submitted against Allah Ditta petitioner and his co‑accused Umar Hayat. Both the accused were acquitted as according to the: earned Magistrate, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused. The order of superdari of Bus was vacated. Allah Ditta filed an appeal under section 520, Cr. P. C., which was dismissed vide impugned judgment.

3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was entitled to the custody of the Bus as he had purchased from Ch. Muhammad Abdur Razzaq on hire purchase agreement and had also paid an amount of Rs. 13,000. Ch. Muhammad Abdur Razzaq was shown to be the owner of the disputed Bus in the Registration Look. The route permit was also in his name. During the course of cross‑examination, Ch. Muhammad Abdur Razzaq bad admitted that an agreement deed had been executed about the sale of the disputed Bus, but according to him, it was cancelled as no amount had been paid. He denied the defence suggestion that he had been paid Rs. 13,000. It is yet to be established by the; petitioner that he was the owner of the disputed Bus and disputed to its possession. It was rightly observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, that it was an agreement of sale and by this agreement, the Sessions the Bus did not stand transferred in the name of the petitioner. I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment. The petitioner, if so advised, can move‑ the civil Court and establish his title. With this observation, the revision petition is dismissed.

Petition 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.