Sections 1 561A, 6 516A and 517 Penal Code of Conduct (XLV of 1860), Sections 420/468/471 Provincial Motor Vehicle Ordinance (XIX of 1965), Sections 23, 25 and 33 of the Vehicle Seizure Order The trial magistrate acquitted the applicant. Although the chase number of the vehicle was tampered with and the registration book was found bogus, it did not prove that the forgery was done by the applicant vehicle, however, the state review petition filed by the applicant against the seizure. Was seized. Appellate Court dismissed, petitioner filed an application to cancel the order seizing the vehicle. In the case of litigation, the wrongdoer cannot be convicted against the applicant, and when no evidence has been proved against the case of a man, the appeal against his fate is not preferred. No one, he cannot be penalized in any way was the applicant not only the last owner of the vehicle, but he was also the sole claimant of its owners mov In terms of immovable property, the greatest proof of ownership was that of the year. Despite registering a lawsuit in 2003 and almost five or five years later, no competing vehicle was found, there was nothing on record to suggest that only the vehicle was stolen. The allegations against the vehicle were that his chase number was tampered with and his registration book was fake. For such objections, a vehicle state could not be confiscated because under section 23 of the West Pakistan Motor Vehicle Ordinance, 1965, most such vehicles may not be operated on the road in question. Be given
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2009
