Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 834 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ZAMAN vs ADDITIONAL SESSIONS

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 834 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ZAMAN VS ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE Ss. 516-a, 523 & 550---Superdari of case property---Scope---Seizure of non-customs paid vehicles under Ss. 550/523, Cr.P.C.---Superdari of vehicles, refusal of---Person 'S' applied for supurdari of the vehicle but the Magistrate rejected the applications and additional Sessions Judge overturned the order of Magistrate giving direction to conduct inquiry under S. 523, Cr.P.C., before taking decision about custody of vehicle and to take action against the petitioner (official of Border Military Police) by lodging a case under art. 155-C of Police Order, 2002, because he had not reported the matter to Magistrate forthwith as required under S. 523, Cr.P.C.---Validity---In the case, no FIR stood registered for theft or otherwise of vehicle nor it was found in the circumstance that it could have been taken into possession under such S. 550, Cr.P.C. particularly when there was no evidence of tempering of chassis number etc.---Even police had no authority to stop or seize non-custom paid vehicle because Customs act, 1969, did not authorize police to take such action which authority rested with Customs Officers---If it was mistakenly taken, even then subordinate officer was bound to inform the Officer Incharge of Police Station and not the Magistrate as S. 550, Cr.P.C. provided---Petitioner had thus performed his duty and no breach or violatin could be attributed to him---However, it was the duty of the Officer Incharge of Police Station to inform the Magistrate if he could have found that conditions of said section were met, otherwise he was under duty to inform the Custom Officers for further proceedings, which was in consonance with the Customs act, 1969---Section 523, Cr.P.C., required that seizure of property would be forthwith reported to a Magistrate which did not mean area Magistrate in all cases but one who was authorized under the law to deal with property so taken---If the vehicle was seized under Control of Narcotic Substances act, 1997, only Court concerned would deal with the vehicle and not the area Magistrate---Similar was the case for all other special laws---Police was bound to hand over such vehicle to Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation of FBR, which was the right course and involvement of Magistrate in such matter was not required under the law who could only tackle the properties mentioned in S. 523, Cr.P.C---Provisions of special law prevailed over general law---Special procedure had been given in the Customs act, 1969, with respect to seizure of non-custom paid vehicle and dealing with offence therein---Customs act, 1969, authorized the police to take possession of any vehicle only for the assistance of Customs Officers and not for any other purpose---Thus, police was not authorized to seize non-custom paid vehicle---If the police had taken the vehicle into custody, it did not bind them to inform the Magistrate about seizure when they were already in correspondence with Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation of FBR---additional Sessions Judge should not have passed order for registration of case because official acts of police taken in good faith were protected under art. 171 of Police Order, 2002---Constitutional petition was allowed by setting aside impugned order, with the direction that Customs authorities would have recourse to legal remedy available under the law for custody of vehicle and confiscation thereof.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 834 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ZAMAN vs ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE Ss — 2023 PCrLJ 834 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ