PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AND ANOTHER
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of Punjab against a decree passed by the High Court in a civil suit. The respondents were originally accused in a criminal case involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. During the criminal proceedings, a truck belonging to the respondent was placed on sapurdari (custody) and specific cash sums were recovered from the accused. Although the respondents were initially convicted and the property confiscated, the appellate court subsequently set aside the conviction and sentence, directing the respondents to seek the return of the confiscated assets through civil litigation. The respondents successfully sued the Provincial Government, obtaining a decree for the value of the truck and the recovered cash. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the truck had since been recovered and was available for return. The core legal question concerns the liability of the Provincial Government for damages arising from proceedings conducted by a criminal court, specifically whether the state can be held civilly liable for property handled during criminal trial processes.
- Can the Provincial Government be held civilly liable for the loss or value of property handled during criminal court proceedings?
- Does the recovery of property previously subject to a civil decree for its value affect the execution of that decree?
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 407, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-In a criminal case arising from F. I. R. No, 47, dated 10-3-1978, of P. S. Khushab under sections 406, 407, 420 and 468, P. P. C. Against Muhammad Nawaz respondent No. 1 and one Muhammad 1 qbal, the truck belonging to respondent No. 1 was, under orders of the Magistrate, made over on sapurdari to one Ghulam Sarwar. At the time of his arrest, a sum of Rs, 1,050 had been recovered from the person of respondent No. 1 and another sum of Rs, 37,947 from the possession of respondent No,
2. The truck was not produced during the trial. Respondent No. 1 and his co-accused were convicted and the aforesaid sums recovered were confiscated. The appellate Court, however, set aside their conviction and sentence but as regards claim to the confiscated money, it left it to be resolved through recourse to civil Court. The respondents then sued the Provincial Government. The suit was decreed in the sum of Rs, 3,38,997, i,e,, Rs, 3,00,000 on account of value of the truck which had not been recovered till the conclusion of the trial of the suit, the value being the same as had been put at the time of making over the truck on sapurdari, and Rs, 38,997 on account of moneys recovered. The Province having failed in its first appeal before the High Court, has sought leave to appeal.
2. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the truck in question has since been recovered and is available to be made over to respondent No. 1, which matter is before the executing Court.
3. The question raised, inter alia, relates to the liability of the Provincial Government. It is urged that in a matter arising from proceedings of a A criminal Court the Provincial Government could not be made liable. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted.