KABIR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
This appeal challenges a High Court judgment that upheld the dismissal of an application for the restoration of custody of a seized vehicle. The appellant's vehicle was seized by the police under Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, following allegations of non-payment of customs duty and the use of fake registration documents. The core legal question was whether the police possessed the jurisdiction to seize the vehicle under Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when no other party had claimed ownership. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir dismissed the appeal, holding that the police action was legally justified. The Court reasoned that Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 confers wide powers on police officers to seize property suspected to be stolen or found under circumstances creating suspicion of an offence. Given the evidence of unpaid customs duties and forged registration papers, the Court affirmed that the lower courts correctly maintained the seizure order, as the circumstances surrounding the vehicle's use reasonably warranted suspicion of criminal activity.
- Does the police have the authority to seize a vehicle under Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if it is suspected of being used with forged registration documents?
- Is the police empowered to seize property under Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 even if no other party has claimed ownership of the property?
- Does the non-payment of customs duty on a vehicle provide sufficient grounds for police seizure under Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 550, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, J.--- This appeal, with the leave of the Court, is directed against the judgment of the High Court passed on 20-4-2001, whereby the revision petition filed by the appellant against the order of S.D.M., Mirpur, dated 14-2-2000, was dismissed.
2. Relevant facts are that Pajero No,5110 A.C. Was under the use of the appellant, when it was seized by the Mirpur Police in exercise of the powers contained in section 550 of Cr.P.C. The appellant moved an application for the restoration of custody of the said vehicle before the S.D.M., Mirpur who dismissed the application vide his order, dated 14-2-2000. A revision was filed before the High Court by the appellant on 16-2-2001, however, his revision was also dismissed by the High Court vide order under challenge, dated 20-4-2001. With the leave of the Court this order has been assailed before us in the present appeal.
3. Mr. Muhammad Yunus Arvi, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised only one point that nobody except his client up to this time has claimed the ownership of this vehicle, therefore, the police had no jurisdiction to seize this vehicle under section 550 of Cr.P.C. According to him, the Courts below have also committed an error in law in maintaining the actions of the Police.
4. On the other hand, Sardar Muhammad Razziq Khan; the learned Additional Advocate-General, supported the order under challenge.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
From the record it is clear that the custom of the vehicle which has been seized by the Mirpur Police has not been paid as is clear from the report in response to the letter of Superintendent of Police, Mirpur by the Government of Pakistan Appraisement Collectorate Custom House, Karachi. Even its registration papers are fake and it was being used under a fake registration number. Prima facie in the light of these allegations the police was justified to seize the Pajero which was under the use of the appellant. The scope of section 550 of Cr.P.C. Is wide enough. Under this provision of law a Police Officer is competent to seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. The vehicle in discussion in the light of the record available with us was under use on forged registration papers, more over its customs duty has not been paid up to this time. In these circumstances the learned Judge in the High Court was justified in law in maintaining the order passed by S.D.M., Mirpur on 14-2-2000.
' This appeal in view of above, having no force is dismissed.