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.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 344 of 1 980, decided on 3rd May, 1980.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 6-2-1979, in W. P. No. 3373/78).
----S. 520-Custody of property: High Court's order that truck in dispute having been in possession of respondent on date of its being taken into custody by Police, respondent eligible to retain its custody till any better claimant succeeds in establishing a better right or title, held, quite in terms of S. 520, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 and no justification existed to interfere with same.-[Custody of property].
Khan Hamid Ali Khan Sherwani, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 3rd May, 1980.
.--It is not necessary to go into the lengthy details of this case or the stages through which it passed and for the purpose of the present order it is sufficient to mention that the dispute in this case is about custody of a truck bearing No. RIC 8731 which: has been given on sapurdari to Umar Hayat (respondent No. 2 herein) by the High Court by its order dated 6-2-1979 passed in Writ Petition No. 3373/78 filed by the aforesaid respondent on the ground that as on the date of its being taken into custody it was in possession of that respondent therefore under section 520, Cr. P. C. he was eligible to retain its custody till any better claimant succeeds in establishing a better right or title for that purpose.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who argued that his client was the owner of the truck therefore its custody should have been given to him, though he concedes that at the time it was taken into custody by Police it was in possession of Umar Hayat, respondent No. 2. He has further conceded that in fact the truck has mostly remained in possession of others and had been changing hands from time to time. In that view of the matter as the order of the High Court is quite in terms of section 520, Cr. P. C. we find no justification to interfere with the same.
2. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer