PESHAWAR, Aug 20: The Peshawar district and sessions judge, Hayat Ali Shah, has ordered the local police not to dispose of case properties without permission from the concerned court.

The judge has taken exception to violation of Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which has made it mandatory on the police to inform the court about seizure of case property.

Through a letter, the court has ordered the capital city police's chief that all the investigating officers should be directed to forthwith report the seizure of case property to the magistrate concerned.

Mr Shah has also directed the magistrates that in any case when the police officers were producing an accused person or obtaining permission for investigating a case, the magistrate should ensure that police officer get orders from the court with in the meaning of Section 523 CrPC.

The court observed that it was repeatedly coming to the notice of this court that the investigating officers did not get orders for the disposal of the case property under Section 523 of the CrPC, which was mandatory.

The I.O for their own purpose did not comply with the mandatory provision of the law which provided that immediately after seizure to obtain order for disposal of case properties from the magistrate.

Mr Shah observed that in the absence of such orders the prosecution cases were affected on the one hand, and on the other hand, the complaints of misuse of case properties were increasing.

The judge had earlier issued the same kind of order on Jan 11, 2003. However, after few days the police reverted back to their routine practice of not reporting seizure of case property to the concerned magistrate.

Meanwhile, the district and sessions judge has ordered all the court officials and assistants (munshi) of lawyers ti display their respective identity cards in the premises of the district and sessions courts so as to identify the touts doing business in the courts.

In an order issued on Tuesday, Mr Hayat Ali Shah ordered that any irrelevant person who visited the court without any specific purpose would be considered a tout and legal action would be taken against him.

The order was issued by the judge under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Act read with the High Court Rules. The step was taken after reported business of some touts in the premises of district and sessions courts.

Most of these touts appeared as sureties in bail applications and have regularly been roaming in the premises of different courts. The court ordered that by displaying their cards, the court officials and assistants of lawyers would be easily differentiated from touts and it would be easy for the police and process-servers to nab these elements.