Find a Lawyer

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑

‑‑ Ss. 516‑A & 517‑Custody of disputed property‑Principles governing disposal of application for custody of disputed property‑Erroneous view taken by a trial Court or a revisional Court while deciding an application under S. 516‑A‑Cannot attract Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199.‑[Disposal of disputed property].

As can be deduced from various precedent rulings, applications under section 516‑A, Criminal Procedure Code are governed by the following principles .‑

(i) If an Article is recovered from a person against whom there is no allegation of any crime, the custody of the same be entrusted to such person on sapurdari, and P. R. Bond.

(ii) If an Article is recovered from a person and if it is clear that the article was stolen, the same may be handed over to the owner against sapurdari, and P. R. Bond.

(iii) An order under section 516‑A, Cr. P. C. is an interlocutory order which can be varied by the trial Court even before the disposal‑ of the case, if circumstances so warrant.

(iv) The criminal Courts are not competent to investigate into the ques tion of title as their jurisdiction is confined under section 516‑A, Cr. P. C. or for that matter under section 517, Cr. P. C. to the determination of the entitlement to possession and not title to the property.

(v) The question of ownership is to be determined by a competent civil Court.

(vi) An erroenous view taken by a trial Court or by a revisional Court while deciding an application under section 516‑A, Cr. P. C. cannot attract the Constitutional jurisdiction of a High Court.

Budhulal Harnarayan Agarwal v. Sukhman A I R 1942 Nag. 829 ; Ramchet Singh Arjun Singh v. Deoji Kalyanji A I R 1942 Bom. 42 ; Ghulam Hussain v. The State 19,70 S C M R 665; Central Co‑operative Bank Ltd., Sargodha v. Ahmed Bux P L D 1976 S C 343 ; Fazal Hussain v. State 1976 Cr. L J 477 ; Syed Amanullah v. Additional City Magistrate P L D 1978 Kar. 934 ; Sona Buhuji v. Rao Subhag Singh 1938 Cr. L J 467 ; A. 1. A. R. A. Ghettyar v. Masohla A I R 1937 Rang. 450; Syed Nizamuddin v. State 1972 P Cr. L J 678 ; Mahmood Alam v. Shoukat Ali and another 1973 P Cr. L J 617; lnayatullah v. Muhammad Tufail P L D 1976 Lah. 641 And ‑ Gasper v. Jenniffer 1977 P Cr. L J 307 ref.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑

‑‑ Art. 199 read with Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115‑Revisional powers of High Court under S. 439(1), Cr. P. C. and S. 115, C. P. C. and Constitutional powers under Art. 199 of Constitution‑Distinction - High Court, under Art. 199, can interfere with an order only where there is. jurisdictional defect.‑[Revision (civil)‑Revision (criminal)‑ Interpretation of statutes].

A perusal of the sections referred to in subsection (1) to section 439, Cr. P. C. will show that under section 439 a revisional Court exercises the powers which are enjoyed by an appellate Court, in other words, there is no restriction akin to the restriction provided for in section 115, C. P. C. in relation to the conditions under which revisional jurisdiction can be exercised. If that is so, it follow3 that it cannot be said that the impugned order is without lawful authority, and, therefore, it is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court, it may be observed that there is a distinction between the revisional power of a High Court under section 439, Cr. P. C. and the power given to it under Article 199 of the Constitution. In the former case the High Court enjoys the power of an appellate Court and therefore, can rectify an erroneous order on question of fact as well as on question of law, but in the latter case the High Court can interfere with an order where there is a jurisdictional defect.

Ghulam Nabi v. Khan Muhammad Afzal Khan, Settlement Commissioner. Lahore 1970 S C M R 68 ; NaNab Syed Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Com missioner P L D 1973 S C 236 and Muhammad Hussain Munir , and others v. Sikandar and others P L D 1974 S C 139 ref.

Muhammad Ashraf Kazi for Petitioner.

Ahmed Saeed Qureshi for Respondent No. 1.

Iqbal Haider for Respondent No. 2.

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.

Date of hearing : 22nd October 1978.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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