| Case ID |
43dc90ce-d20b-4b2b-937d-820220bcb525 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 142 of 2020 |
| Decision Date |
Jul 23, 2020 |
| Hearing Date |
Jul 23, 2020 |
| Decision |
The petition for superdari of the vehicle was dismissed due to insufficient evidence that the petitioner was the bona fide purchaser. The petitioner failed to provide documentary evidence proving ownership of the vehicle. The vehicle was involved in a crime, and the petitioner was not the registered owner, which led to the dismissal of the petition. The court stated that the real owner may apply for superdari after resolving the deficiencies highlighted in the decision. |
| Summary |
In the case of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 142 of 2020, the petitioner sought superdari for a vehicle linked to a crime scene where his son’s body was found. The court ruled that the petitioner failed to prove ownership and that the vehicle's tax had not been paid for the last three years. The decision emphasizes the importance of documentary evidence in establishing ownership and the implications of using a vehicle in a crime. Keywords for SEO include 'superdari', 'Criminal Procedure Code', 'vehicle custody', 'legal representation', and 'court decision'. Understanding legal proceedings and case law is essential for anyone involved in criminal cases, especially regarding property involved in criminal activities. This case highlights the procedural requirements for claiming custody of property pending trial, reinforcing the need for clear legal documentation and ownership proof. |
| Court |
High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, C.J.,
HUKUM KHAN
|
| Lawyers |
Arif Nazir,
Deputy Advocate General
|
| Petitioners |
Hukum Khan
|
| Respondents |
The STATE
|
| Citations |
2021 SLD 1558,
2021 YLR 1379
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
|
| Sections |
516-A
|