Mamor Ali vs State S — 2025 PCrLJ 1913 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

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

Mamor Ali VS State S. 561-a---Inherent power of Chief Court---Scope---Release of vehicle in favour of petitioner---Petitioner sold out the vehicle being owner of the same to "GH" in consideration of an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/----Said purchaser had issued a cheque amounting Rs. 3,80,000/- in favour of petitioner, which could not be withdrawn due to non-availability of amount in the bank account of "GH"---When the purchaser failed to pay the sale amount, the petitioner took back the custody of the said vehicle---Later one "MH" filed application for the registration of FIR against the petitioner with the claim that he had purchased the said vehicle from "GH" and he was real owner of the vehicle which was stolen by the petitioner---Said application was not entertained by the SHO, for which "MH" filed an application under S.22-a, Cr.P.C, which was allowed---Petitioner filed revision petition against the said order, wherein the Chief Court while disposing off the matter had directed the SHO to trace the real owner of the vehicle in question---Despite the said direction of the Court, SHO failed to comply with the orders of the Court, hence the present petition---Validity---after perusal of the report submitted by the respondent No.1/SHO, it became crystal clear that the petitioner was admittedly owner of the subject car which he sold to one "GH" for sale consideration Rs. 450,000/, for which he had given a bogus cheque to the petitioner which was disowned by the bank due to non-availability of amount in his account and the sale amount had not been paid to the petitioner till date---Without payment of the sale price to the petitioner, further transactions of the subject car as owner was illegal and based on mala fide, as such all the subsequent transaction shall be void---SHO, in his report, himself stated that the "GH" had not paid the sale amount to the petitioner and the bogus cheque issued by the "GH" was dishonored by the bank, but neither any proceedings had been initiated against the "GH" nor he had been investigated in that regard---When the SHO was confronted with the contents of his report, he could not justify the Court for this inefficiency---During the course of proceedings it was brought on record that the said "GH" who was serving in the police department as FC Driver was habitual offender known as a thug, and he had not defrauded only the petitioner but also cheated many other gentle people of the area---In view of the facts brought on record during the proceedings of instant matter, it became crystal clear that the conduct of concerned Police Officials dealing with the present matter was totally based on mala fide---Vehicle in question was taken from the custody of the petitioner by two persons who were personel of CTD Police---all the efforts made by the concerned Police Official who conducted the investigation in the instant matter were intended to protect and benefit "GH" who was also a police official and deprived a poor person/petitioner from his right---Intentional inefficiency and negligence of the police officials in proper conduct of proceedings of the case should have been inquired and responsible officials should have been dealt with iron hand after proper inquiry---DIG Police was directed to appoint a honest officer of SP rank in the matter for conducting proper inquiry---Said DIG was also directed to confirm that the impugned vehicle was not stolen, by utilizing the modern facilities i.e. anti Car Lifting authority's web site, and other applications/means which were available with the police and Excise and Taxation Departments for tracing the stolen vehicles---If it was found that the subject vehicle was not stolen then it shall be handed over to the petitioner who was according to the existing record owner of subject vehicle---Petition was disposed.

Mamor Ali vs State S — 2025 PCrLJ 1913 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ