| Case ID |
00bb0ab7-3fa3-4f69-b384-f834c73d366b |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Revision No. 19-P of 2017 |
| Decision Date |
Jul 28, 2017 |
| Hearing Date |
Jul 28, 2017 |
| Decision |
The Peshawar High Court, presided by Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, delivered a decision on Criminal Revision No. 19-P of 2017 on July 28, 2017. The court reviewed the application under Section 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) filed by the respondents for the return of articles/items taken into custody during the investigation of charges under Sections 302 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner contested the return of these items, which were not utilized in the commission of the alleged offenses and were neither produced nor exhibited during the trial. The court found that the respondents did not provide a plausible reason for the twelve-year delay in filing the application for the return of the articles. Although there is no statutory limitation period for such applications under Section 517, the court emphasized that the application must be made within a reasonable time or accompanied by a valid explanation for the delay, neither of which was satisfied in this case. Consequently, the court set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated January 12, 2017, allowing the return of the articles to the respondents. The decision underscores the importance of timely filings and the court's authority to manage the disposition of property related to criminal proceedings. |
| Summary |
In the case of ARBAB TEHSINULLAH versus RIAZ AND OTHERS, adjudicated by the Peshawar High Court on July 28, 2017, the court addressed a criminal revision petition under Section 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898). The petitioners sought the return of household articles/items that were seized by the Investigating Officer during the investigation of charges under Sections 302 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860. These articles were handed over to the petitioner after the preparation of a superdagi-nama. Although the Trial Court initially convicted the respondents, they were later acquitted upon appeal in 2002. In 2014, the respondents filed an application for the return of the articles, which was accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge, directing the petitioner to return the items or compensate for their market value. The petitioner challenged this order, leading to the revision petition before the High Court.
Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim presided over the case, meticulously examining the provisions of Section 517, which governs the disposal of property related to criminal offenses. The court noted that while there is no statutory limitation on filing an application under this section, it must be done within a reasonable timeframe or accompanied by a justified explanation for any delay. In this instance, the respondents' application was filed twelve years after their acquittal, without providing a valid reason for such a prolonged delay.
The High Court observed that the articles in question were neither used in the commission of any offense nor were they presented during the trial. Additionally, the memo of the articles was exhibited, yet the respondents did not claim their return at that time. The court emphasized that the failure to produce or exhibit the articles during the trial, coupled with the significant delay in filing the application, undermined the respondents' position. Consequently, the court set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, allowing the petitioner to retain the seized articles.
This judgment highlights the judiciary's role in ensuring that legal procedures are followed diligently and that parties adhere to reasonable timelines when seeking remedies. It also underscores the importance of the court's discretion in managing property related to criminal cases, balancing the rights of the parties involved with the principles of justice and procedural fairness. The decision serves as a pivotal reference for future cases involving the disposal or return of property in the aftermath of criminal proceedings, emphasizing the necessity for timely actions and substantive justification for any delays. |
| Court |
Peshawar High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
ISHTIAQ IBRAHIM, JUSTICE
|
| Lawyers |
Saifullah Khalil,
Mian Arshad Jan, A.A.G.,
Saadatullah Khan
|
| Petitioners |
ARBAB TEHSINULLAH
|
| Respondents |
RIAZ AND OTHERS
|
| Citations |
2018 SLD 1125,
2018 PCRLJ 790
|
| Other Citations |
Bhimji Ramji Gujrathi v. Emperor AIR 1914 Nagpur,
Syed Bahadur Ali Shah v. Muhammad Anwar and another PLD 1959 Lah. 151 rel.
|
| Laws Involved |
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
|
| Sections |
517
|