Ghulam Dastager V. The State,
PCrLJ 2014 410 · Balochistan High Court
This case is about a Toyota Hilux vehicle that was seized by police in Quetta in 2008, allegedly connected to explosives and arms recovered from persons using it. The three men arrested with the vehicle were tried under terrorism and explosives laws, but all were acquitted. However, the trial court, in its acquittal judgment, ordered the vehicle confiscated by the State. The appellant, Ghulam Dastageer, said the vehicle actually belonged to him, that it had been snatched from him, and that he was never accused in any of the cases. He fought through multiple rounds of litigation, including the Supreme Court, to recover his vehicle.
Eventually the Supreme Court allowed him to file an application before the trial court asking for custody of the vehicle, and directed the trial court to actually decide that application on its merits. Instead, the trial court dismissed his application again, reasoning that deciding it would amount to reviewing its own earlier judgment, which courts are generally not allowed to do.
The Balochistan High Court disagreed. It held that an order confiscating property is not the same as a full "judgment" under the law, so the rule against reviewing judgments did not apply. The trial court was legally required to examine Ghulam Dastageer's claim to the vehicle on its own merits, not dismiss it on a technical excuse. The High Court set aside the trial court's order and sent the matter back for a fresh decision, allowing the appeals. This shows courts must properly examine ownership claims over seized property, even after a criminal case has ended.
یہ مقدمہ ٹویوٹا ہائی لکس گاڑی سے متعلق ہے جسے 2008 میں کوئٹہ پولیس نے قبضے میں لیا تھا، اور جس کا مبینہ تعلق ان افراد سے برآمد ہونے والے دھماکہ خیز مواد اور اسلحہ سے جوڑا گیا تھا جو یہ گاڑی استعمال کر رہے تھے۔ گاڑی کے ساتھ گرفتار ہونے والے تینوں افراد پر دہشت گردی اور دھماکہ خیز مواد سے متعلق قوانین کے تحت مقدمہ چلایا گیا، مگر سب کو بری کر دیا گیا۔ تاہم ٹرائل کورٹ نے بریت کے فیصلے میں ہی حکم دیا کہ گاڑی ریاست کی تحویل میں ضبط کر لی جائے۔
اپیل کنندہ، غلام دستگیر نے مؤقف اختیار کیا کہ یہ گاڑی دراصل اس کی ملکیت ہے، یہ اس سے چھینی گئی تھی، اور اسے کسی بھی مقدمے میں کبھی ملزم نہیں بنایا گیا۔ اس نے اپنی گاڑی واپس لینے کے لیے سپریم کورٹ سمیت مقدمہ بازی کے کئی مراحل طے کیے۔
بالآخر سپریم کورٹ نے اسے اجازت دی کہ وہ ٹرائل کورٹ میں گاڑی کی تحویل کے لیے درخواست دائر کرے، اور ٹرائل کور