Sardar HIRA SINGH and another vs THE STATE and others
This matter concerns a dispute over the management of the Sree Guru Nanak Darbar in Karachi, which arose in 1993 between members of the Hindu community and two individuals claiming to be Sikh converts. The dispute led to proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the Assistant Commissioner and S.D.M., who ordered the premises to be sealed due to an inability to determine which party held initial possession. While an Additional Sessions Judge initially reversed this order, the High Court subsequently restored the S.D.M.'s order. The petitioners approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's decision. The Supreme Court examined the record and found that the High Court's order was based on evidence recorded by the S.D.M. and that there was no misreading of evidence or oversight of material facts. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings of fact, dismissed the petition, and refused leave to appeal, affirming the restoration of the S.D.M.'s order regarding the possession and sealing of the property.
- Can a High Court restore an order of a Magistrate regarding the possession of property under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the Supreme Court inclined to interfere with findings of fact made by a High Court when there is no misreading of evidence?
- Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. MAMOON KAZI, J.---Sree Guru Nanak Darbar, situated at Aram Bagh, Karachi, was established in 1915. Since then members of Hindu community living in Karachi and other parts of the country have been offering their prayers and holding other religious ceremonies there. In June, 1993, a dispute arose between respondents Nos.2 and 3, who claim to be Sikh converts and the members of the Hindu community in respect of the management of the said Darbar which resulted in institution of proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Before the Assistant Commissioner and S.D.M., Aram Bagh, Karachi. As the S.D.M. Was unable to decide which of the two parties was initially in possession, the Darbar was ordered to be sealed pending determination of the respective claims of the parties by a Civil Court. This order was, however, reversed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South, vide his judgment dated 27-6-1994 and the property was ordered to be desealed. The respondents then went before the High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. And the order passed by the S.D.M. Has been restored.
2. ' A perusal of the said order indicates that it is based on evidence recorded by the learned S.D.M.
3. There appears to be no misreading of evidence and neither any material aspect of the case has been overlooked. We find no reason to upset the findings of fact arrived at by the High Court. The petition is therefore, dismissed and leave is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.