[Sections 516-A To 525, Cr.P.C.]
Purpose of proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. is to prevent breach of peace. Order of attachment and receivership passed without examining witnesses and without giving grounds and reasons for being satisfied with regard to breach of peace, held, void and illegal. Proceedings quashed. 1976 P.Cr.LJ 43 Ali Mohammad.
Likelihood of breach of peace. The primary object of this section is to preserve peace. When it is found that there is no likelihood of the peace being disturbed there is no necessity for the Magistrate to continue the proceedings. ILR 21 Cal. 29 Ramchandra v. Manohar.
Jurisdiction of the criminal Court cannot be invoked except on the ground of likelihood of breach of peace. AIR 1947 Pesh. 8 Kohat Municipality v. Mst. Piari.
Possession regulated by Civil Court, the proceedings under section 145, Cr. P.C. are not maintainable but to avoid the breach of peace proceedings under section 107, Cr.P.C. can be resorted to. (DB) PLD 1976 Lah. 1378 Anwar Javid etc. v. Ikram-ul-Haq etc.
Possession of property regulated by Civil Court, even though by a temporary injunction. Held, matter falls outside jurisdiction of Magistrate u/S. 145, Cr.P.C. (SC) NLR 1985 Cr. 472; Mehr Mohammad Sarwar etc.
Civil suit and section 145, Cr. P.C. Unless civil Court regulates the possession of the disputed property the jurisdiction of Criminal Court is not ousted. Simultaneous proceedings under sections 145 and 107, Cr. P.C. are maintainable. (DB) PLJ 1977 Lah. 246 Anwar Javid etc. v. Ikram-ul-Haq etc.
Proceedings under section 107/151, Cr.P.C. do not vitiate proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. PLJ 1967 Lah. 577 Ghulam Mohammad v. Mohammad Ismail.
When apprehension of breach of peace disappears in proceeding under section 145, Cr.P.C. the Court becomes coram non judice and any order passed is liable to be quashed. PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Kar.) 517 Nawazish Ali. 1975 P Cr. LJ 510.
Proceedings under sections 107 and 145, Cr.P.C. Simultaneous proceedings under both the sections are maintainable. (DB) PLD 1977 Lah. 100 Anwar Javid v. Ikramul Haq.
Danger of breach of peace when not existing any longer during the pendency of proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. the Magistrate to close the proceedings when any interested party at any time proves so to the Court. 1975 Cr. LJ 75 Noor Ahmad v. Jamil Ahmad etc.
Possession of land given under setion 522, Cr.P.C. to the complainant. Accused however acquitted on revision. possession may be restored to the accused under section 561-A the High Court. PLD 1954 Pesh. 50 Qaribullah v. Nawabzada Mohammad Ismail Khan.
Section 523 word property does not include "immovable property". PLD 1965 Lah. 425 Inayat Hussain.
Section 522 Appellate Court while setting aside. Judgment competent to set aside Magistrate's order under section 522, Cr.P.C. and restore possession of property to the acused. PLD 1963 Lah. 41 Saeed Ahmad.
Section 522. Accused acquitted in appeal. Magistrate's order restoring property to complainant need not be disturbed. PLD 1963 B 27 Mahmood v. Akhtar Ali.
Section 522 and 517. Under section 517 only person claiming to be entitled to possession of property can ask for the delivery to him, while under section 522 person asking for restoration of property need not claim to be entitled to its possession. Court acting under section 522 need not enter into question of right of possession for restoration of property. PLD 1963 Lah. 467 Mohammad Bakhsh v. Ashiq Hussain.
Seizure of property by police is a condition precedent for passing order under section 523, Cr.P.C. Preventive action is not contemplated. PLD 1965 Lah. 425 Sh. Inayat Hussain.
Section 25 of Evidene Act and section 161, Cr.P.C. are not applicable to proceedings under section 517 (1), Cr.P.C. (SC) PLD 1970 SC 343 Central Cooperative Bank v. Ahmad Bakhsh.
Superdari continues till the case property is disposed of under section 517, Cr. P.C. Mere recommendation of police for cancellation of case does not automatically put superdari to an end and entitle superdari to retain property as of right. (SC) 1974 SCMR 238 Khan Mohammad v. Mohammad Abdullah.
Orders under sections 517 and 520, Cr.P.C. do not settle any rights nor do they confer any title. These provisions are for the summary disposal of the property. PLD 1966 Lah. 918 Ahmed Bakhsh.
Court unable to ascertain rightful owner of the property, directing same to be kept in malkhana until title is established by the parties in a Civil Court. Order upheld by the High Court. PLD 1961 Lah. 205 Ghulam Nabi.
Person entitled to possession. Magistrate handing over property without making an inquiry to find out person entitled to its possession. Order set aside, 1969 P.Cr.LJ 747 Ch. Nawazish Ali.
Courts not to go into title of property, which is to be decided by a competent civil Court. Property u/S. 517, Cr.P.C. is to be handed over to person from whose possession it was taken over by the police. Bona fide purchaser handed over the possession from whose possession the tractor was taken by police. PLJ 1990 Cr.C. (Kar.) M. Saleem Khan.
Title of property. Question of title to property concerned is hardly desirable to be decided under section 517 (1), Cr.P.C. The Court is not competent to decide it either. The question of title if any should be left to be decided by an ordinary civil Court of competent jurisdiction. (SC) PLD 1970 SC 343. Central Co-operative Bank v. Ahmed Bakhsh.
Disposal of crime property. Court directing that vehicle (crime property) be kept in police custody till question of title be determined finally by a civil Court. Held, proper exercise of discretion in the circumstances of the case. (SC) 1972 SCMR 159 Ghulam Gilani v. Muhammad Yousaf.
Custody of property u/S. 516-A is to be restored to the party from whom taken but under special circumstances when there was a lien on property (Bus chassis) by the workshop for the work having been done on it, held the High Court was right in safeguarding the interest of workshop by ordering a bank guarantee before superdari could be given. 1980 SCMR 954 Republic Motors v. M. Anwar etc.
Entitlement to custody not ascertained. Ownership by itself is not enough to establish entitlement to custody. Magistrate giving cattle on superdari to applicant without sending for police record or ascertaining entitlement to custody. The Magistrate held, acted perfunctorily. Order set aside. 1976 P.C.LJ 632 Dais Muhammad v. Zahoor Ahmed Khan etc.
Application of complainant and accused for the possession of the property alleged to be stolen, pending decision in Court, the complainant mean-while filing declaratory suit in civil Court. Magistrate not deciding the case but referring the parties to obtain the verdict of civil Court. Held, the Magistrate should have disposed of the application independent of the civil suit pending between the parties. PLD 1966 Lah. 678 Bashir.
Purchaser of stolen property from a thief cannot be given superdari of property pending the decision of the case. PLD 1976 Lah. 641 Inayat Ullah v. Muhammad Tufail etc.
Bona fide purchaser bought a buffalo in open market. The original owner from whom it was stolen entitled to receive it. 197 P.Cr.LJ 279 Faiz Ahmad.
" Tractor seized from bona fide purchaser held, interim custody of such property should go to the person from whom it is recovered. 1976 P.Cr.LJ 747 Fazal Hussain.
Truck seized from bona fide purchaser. Property seized normally to be given to person from whose possession it is taken unless there are special reasons for doing otherwise. Order passed on basis of ownership are not justified. 1973 P.Cr.LJ 288 Zahur-ud-Din v. Muhammad Inayat Ullah (Kar.).
Truck superdari u/S. 516-A Cr.P.C. given to the applicant as according to the documents he is prima facie owner of the truck, and the truck is the only means of his livelihood. PLJ 1994 Cr.C. (Kar.) 452, Muhammad Ramzan.
Case property to be returned by trial Court u/S. 516-A Cr.P.C. when appeal is accepted by the Supreme Court. PLJ 1997 FSC 30, Manzoor Hussain Jatoi.
Rash and negligent driving. A driver is prosecuted for rash and negligent driving. His car cannot be detained as case property. AIR 1931 Lah. 565.
Confiscation of jeep is bad in law when accused is charged for murderous assault with a revolver. 1971 P.Cr.LJ 19 Syed Razi Shah.
Car alleged to have been stolen recovered, from bona fide purchaser ordered to be given to person from whom recovered, on superdari, till it is identified by the Court as subject-matter of theft. 1970 P.Cr.LJ 875 Atta Muhammad.
Custody of truck seized under Pure Food Stuff Control Act, and standing in police Malkhana, given to its owner on heavy security, as the truck was liable to deteriorate in police Malkhana. 1974 P.Cr.LJ 452 Fazal Dad = PLJ 1974 Cr.C. (Lah.) 53.
Conveyance of offender cannot automatically be forfeited without the order of a Magistrate. PLD 1976 Pesh. 144 Ghulam Rasul etc.
Superdari of truck. Case registered under section 420/406, P.P.C. for cheating about the truck. Held, the truck should not have been recovered from the person possessing it unless a strong case of cheating was made out. (SC) 1970 SCMR 665 Ghulam Hussain.
Superdari of truck involved in smuggling of charas, give to its owner only because the vehicle would deteriorate if not given on superdari. PLJ 1991 FSC 30 State v. Abdul Bari etc.
Custody of truck on superdari handed over to the petitioner in writ petition on the ground that the truck was neither a stolen property nor having been used in commission of any offence and was in possession of police u/Ss. 523/550 Cr.P.C. and as such was illegal. PLJ 1997 Pesh. 147, Riasat Khan.
Superdari of car taken into possession by the High Court in proceeding under section 491, Cr.P.C. High Court finding the care to have been purchased with the money of the women involved in the proceedings ordering it to be placed in the custody of the father of the woman till question of ownership was decided by the civil Court. Order of the High Court held proper. (SC) 1970 SCMR 293 Malik Khadim Hussain v. Muhammad Siddique.
Superdari of motor vehicle given to the person from whose possession it was taken by the police, till the decision of the civil Court. 1992 SCMR 1454, Munir Ahmed v. Barkhurdar.
Custody of car. Car recovered from petitioner but respondent prima facie purchaser of car. Strong indications exist showing car not belonging to petitioner on day of its recovery. Order giving custody to respondent maintained. 1973 P.Cr.LJ 617 Mahmood Alam Khan v. Sakhawat.
" Car depreciates in storage. It should be given to one of the parties subject to proper security for production in Court. 1974 P.Cr.LJ Note 53 Ghulam Akbar v. Muhammad Ilyas.
Car used in the commission of the offence owned and claimed by the person not doing anything to advocate commission of offence. Court bound to release such property for "proper custody" under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. Order of Magistrate withholding custody of car from its owner, held entirely unjustified. 1970 P.Cr.LJ 1215 Miss Zarina Khan.
Car used in commission of offence is no ground for refusing its custody to its owner who is not connected with crime. NLR 1989 Cr. 445 Bukawal.
Car superdari. Dispute regarding motor-car. It is better to entrust car to an automobile dealer. (SC) 1968 P.Cr.LJ 1738 Abdul Hamid v. Sher Alam etc.
" Superdari order should be passed in favour of a person entitled to its possession or from whom it was recovered unless there are strong reasons against it. Refusal by the Magistrate that the car when given on superdari will be recklessly used and depreciate in value is unlawful. PLJ 1976 Lah. 181 Farooq Jamil. PLD 1976 Lah. 58.
Custody of Rickshaw taken by accused on hire and removed to another district without making payment. The accused said that it was a case of civil nature the temporary custody be allowed to remain with him. Court allowed rickshaw to be retained by accused on payment of hire charges at Rs. 200 p.m. 1973 P.Cr.LJ 626 Ameer v. Mustaqeem.
Cash drawn by complainant from bank but taken by accused under threats. Recovery witnesses won over. Cash ordered to be returned to the brother of the deceased complainant. Accused order to establish his right in civil Court. (DB) 1973 P.Cr.LJ 1. Jamal Khan v. Sardar Khan.
Acquittal of accused in appeal does not compel a Court to restore the property to him. Each case is to be decided on its own circumstances. (DB) PLD 1950 Lah. 154 Abdul Ghani v. Crown.
Accused acquitted on benefit of doubt. Property 33.75 tolas of gold given to the complainant. PLD 1963 Lah. 451 Mukhtar Ahmed.
On acquittal of the accused it is not incumbent on the Court to return property to the person from whom it was recovered. Aggrieved person may establish his title in the civil Court. (SC) 1971 SCMR 774 Saeed Ahmad.
Conviction set aside, order under section 522, Cr.P.C. must also be set aside and the property be allowed to remain in the possession of the accused 1970 P.Cr.LJ 956 Mahboob Elahi v. Ghulam Rasul.
The acquittal or conviction of the accused is immaterial, the Court may pass an order for the disposal of the property. PLD 1969 Lah. 141 Bahadar Ali Shah v. Muhammad Anwar.
Discharge of petitioner under section 457/380, P.P.C. entitles them to the return of case property (currency notes) recovered from them during the police investigation. PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Lah.) 394 Fateh Khan etc.
Possession to be given to the accused. When the conviction of the accused under section 448, P.P.C. is set aside, the possession of the house given to the complainant under section 522, Cr.P.C. must be restored to the accused. 30 Cr.L.J. 902 Rughu-nath v. Raghunath. AlR 1923 Lah. 15 = 24 Cr.LJ 493.
Crime weapon. Shot-gun was ordered to be confiscated to the state in application under section 561-A for the return of crime weapon to the accused when the accused had been convicted and his appeal dismissed. (DB) PLD 1976 Pesh. 127 Shawar Gul.
No limitation is prescribed for an application under section 517 (1), Cr.P.C. for the disposal of case property. Court can pass such order till case property is disposed of. 1976 P.Cr.LJ 116 Abdul Latif.
No limitation is prescribed for making application under section 520. The proceedings are of special nature. It is neither appeal nor in the nature of appeal. PLD 1966 Lah. 918 Ahmad Bakhsh.
Limitation. Application for restoration of property made be filed within reasonable time from the date of final decision of the case. PLD 1959 Lah. 141 Bahadar Ali Shah v. Muhammad Anwar.
Order for disposal of stolen property is not be contemporaneous with announcement of orders in original case. PLJ 1974 Cr. C. (Lah.) 421 Jallal Khan.
Order of superdari without notice to accused under section 523, Cr.P.C. held to be an interlocutory order liable to be set aside by the Magistrate who rightly ordered that the vehicle should remain with the police till the disposal of the case. 1968 P.Cr.LJ 936, C.M. Safdar.
Revision competent. Order under section 523, Cr.P.C. is open to revision by High Court. PLD 1965 Lah. 425 Inayat Hussain.
"Any Court of appeal, confirmation, reference or revision" in section 520, Cr.P.C. is not necessarily limited to Court before which an appeal or revision is pending; section 520, Cr.P.C. gives supervisory powers to Courts of appeal or revision independently of the fact whether any appeal or revision in the substantive case is pending or not. PLD 1973 Lah. 45 Jallal Khan. PLD 1974 Cr. C. (Lah.) 421.
"Court of appeal" in section 520 Cr.P.C. is not necessarily limited to a Court before which appeal is pending. Even when the substantive case is not before the Court in appeal or revision, the Court may interfere with the order passed under section 517, Cr.P.C. by the trial Court. PLD 1966 Lah. 918 Ahmad Bakhsh. PLD 1950 Lah. 97 Sardara v. Boota. PLD 1960 Dacca 23 Lall Mia.
No appeal. Magistrate's order under section 517, Cr.P.C. is not appealable but can be revised by the Sessions Judge. 1972 P.Cr.LJ 5 Muhammad Akram.
Order under section 523, Cr.P.C. not appealable under section 520, Cr.P.C. Order set aside. 1977 P.Cr.LJ 168 Mumtaz Akhtar.
"Court of appeal or revision" (sections 520 and 517, Cr.P.C.). Words "Courts of appeal or revision" not necessarily limited to a Court before which an appeal or revision is pending. Powers of Courts of appeal or revision to correct errors of Court below in respect of orders passed under section 517 with regard to stolen property exists independent of the fact whether or not an appeal or revision in the substantive case is pending. PLJ 1974 Cr.C. (Lah.) 421 Jallal Khan. PLD 1975 Lah. 45.
Section 520, Cr.P.C. does not provide for an appeal or revision against orders regarding disposal of property. Powers under section 520 may be exercised on an ordinary application. Petitioner acquitted by High Court for offence under section 411, P.P.C. The magistrate meanwhile ordered the delivery of the property to the complainant. Application for the restoration of the property direct to the High Court by the petitioner competent. PLD 1958 Lah. 212 Ghulam Akbar.
Discretion of the Judge for disposal of property. The Judge has the discretion in the disposal of the property and he may in the circumstances of the case order the property to be given to a person other than the one from whose possession it was found, even though the man may not have been found guilty. PLD 1953 Sindh 25 Crown v. Hyder.
Order cannot be revised by Magistrate. Magistrate making order under section 523 reviewing or revising it and without giving notice to the petitioner in whose favour earlier order was made, order held illegal and set aside. 1970 P.Cr.LJ 1253 Mian Faiz Ahmed. Contra. PLD 1975 Lah. 744.
Recovered property directed to be returned to owner of the property. The property had been taken from the house of the deceased. Neither any offence had been committed regarding this property nor it had been used in the commission of the offence; therefore provisions of Sec. 516-A Cr.P.C. were not applicable to the disposal of the property. 1996 SCMR 1544, Khalid Sleem v. Muhammad Javid etc.