FAZAL KARIM AND 2 Others vs THE PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN THROUGH, HOME SECRETARY
This appeal by special leave arises from an order of the High Court of West Pakistan dismissing a writ petition filed under Article 170 of the Constitution of 1956. The appellants sought the return of certain articles seized from their possession during a criminal prosecution under sections 408, 409, 380, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code, which ended in their acquittal. Although magistrates previously ordered the return of the seized articles, they were never restored as they had allegedly been disposed of. The core legal question concerns whether the provisions of Chapter XLIII of the Criminal Procedure Code provide an adequate remedy for property disposal after trial and whether magistrates acted illegally in refusing jurisdiction, alongside the effect of the articles never being produced before a court of law. The Supreme Court held that since the articles were never produced before a court of law, provisions under Chapter XLIII of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding property disposal were inapplicable, and a writ petition was an inappropriate remedy where property was disposed of or wrongfully detained, leaving civil proceedings as the proper recourse. The appeal was dismissed.
- Whether the provisions in Chapter XLIII of the Criminal Procedure Code are adequate enough to provide for the disposal of property after the conclusion of a trial in a criminal court?
- Can a magistrate make an order under Chapter XLIII of the Criminal Procedure Code for the disposal of articles that were never produced before a court of law?
- Is a writ petition an appropriate proceeding for the recovery of seized articles that have already been disposed of or wrongfully detained?
- Article 170, Constitution of Pakistan 1956
- Sections 408, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Sections 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Sections 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Sections 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This appeal by special leave is from an order of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan, dismissing a petition under Article 170 of the Constitution of 1956.
2. Certain articles had been seized from the possession of the appellants in connection with a criminal case under sec--tions 408/409/380/411 of the Pakistan Penal Code, instituted against.
3. Them by the Vice-President of the Central Co-operative Bank, Sialkot. The case ended to the acquittal of the appellants on 2-7-1954, whereupon they successively 'applied to the Magistrates concerned for return of the articles seized from them, and although at one stage they were ordered to be returned to the appellants, the articles were never returned.
4. Relying upon a report of the Superintendent of Police that the articles claimed by the appellants had already been delivered to the officer incharge of Arya School Government Dump.
5. In pursuance of an order of the Additional District Magistrate, the High Court held that it was obvious that the articles in question had already been disposed of and could not be restored to the petitioners. The Court further observed that in these circumstances the only and proper remedy open to the petitioner was to go to the civil Court for relief, and that a writ was not an appropriate proceeding for this.
6. Leave to appeal has been granted to consider the questions whether the provisions is Chapter XLIII of the Criminal Procedure Code are adequate enough to provide for the disposal of the property after the conclusion of a trial in a criminal Court and whether the Magistrates acted illegally in refusing to exercise their jurisdiction thereunder.
7. It, however, appears from ground No. II of the concise statement put in on behalf of appellant Fazal Karim and ground No. 1 of the concise statement put in on behalf of the respondent that the articles in question were never produced before a Court of law. If that be so, how could the Magistrates under Chapter XLIII of the Criminal Procedure make any order in respect of the disposal of such articles.
8. If the articles in question had been wrongfully taken or detained it was open to the appellants to go to the civil Court for relief within the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act. No writ petition in any event was available to him.
9. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed, but having regard to the facts of the case, we make no order as to costs.