2012 PLP 322 (MLD)

MIFTAH-UD-DIN KHAN, J.

Petitioner Rustam Khan has filed the present petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. for quashment of the order dated 1-4-2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Haripur, whereby, Criminal Revision No.24 of 2010 filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 16-3-2011 of learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Haripur was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that vide Daily Diary No.7 dated 25-10-2010 one Raziq Khan A.S.-I. of P.P. Sarai Saleh took into possession a Suzuki Carry bearing No.B-2091 Haripur under section 523/ 550, Cr.P.C. on suspicion that the same is stolen property. The present petitioner, who claimed to be purchaser of vehicle from one Nazzar Ahmad applied for superdari of the vehicle to the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Haripur but his application for superdari was dismissed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 16-3-2011. Aggrieved from the same, the petitioner preferred Revision Petition No.24 of 2010 before learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Haripur but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 1-4-2011. Aggrieved from the orders of courts below, petitioner has filed the present petition for quashment of the impugned orders and delivery of the vehicle in question on superdari to the petitioner. Notice was given to the State. Arguments heard and record perused.

4. Admittedly, the vehicle in question is in possession of the local police right from 25-10-2010 till date and no one has reported regarding the theft or snatching of the vehicle in question. The vehicle in question is also neither a case property nor required for further investigation to the police. The present petitioner is the sole claimant of the vehicle who is in possession of open transfer letter of the vehicle in question as well as affidavit of last owner/transferee of the vehicle. No one has come forward to claim ownership of the vehicle in question except the present petitioner. In the absence of any rival claimant as well as the fact that neither the vehicle is stolen property nor involved in any criminal case, superdari of the same cannot be refused to the petitioner on mere ground that the chassis number is refitted and welded per labotatory report. Reference may be made to 2007 YLR Lahore 2867 in this connection. This court while dealing with the matter of superdari of vehicle in case titled "Mehboob Khan v. State" reported in 2003 YLR page 791 observed as under:-- "Ss.516-A, 523 & 561-A--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419/420/471.

Release of vehicle on "Superdari"

Police had given no intimation to the concerned Magistrate about the seizure of the Suzuki and in violation of the provisions of S.523, Cr.P.C--Said vehicle admittedly belonged to the petitioner who was in possession of its documents and appeared to be its owner in the absence of any rival claimant

Vehicle in question was neither a stolen property nor it was involved in any criminal case Question as to the chassis number which was not changed but was alleged to be welded was a matter of evidence which could be seen at the time of trial

Retention of the vehicle in police custody for an indefinite period without any progress in the case for the last more than two years would result in its complete decay and deterioration which could not be allowed under any provision of law

Vehicle was handed over to the petitioner on "Superdari" in circumstances." In another judgment reported in 2006 YLR 1831 (Lahore jurisdiction ) it was observed as under:-- "Ss 516-A & 550

Custody of vehicle on Superdari

Custody of vehicle in question as being sought by petitioner on the grounds that he was a bona fide purchaser and owner of said vehicle and that seizure thereof under S. 550 Cr.P.C. was illegal--Further contention of petitioner was that neither there was any rival claimant of the vehicle in question nor same was involved in any criminal case

Nothing was on record to show that the vehicle was stolen property or same was involved in any criminal case

Documents of said vehicle were properly maintained by petitioner

Only question as to Chassis panel, which was allegedly refitted and re-punched, was a matter of evidence which could be seen at the time of trial

Retention of vehicle in police possession for an indefinite period without there being any progress in the case, would mean nothing, but complete decay, deterioration and damage thereto which could not be allowed under any provision of law

Documents appended with petition, prima facie, had shown petitioner to be owner of vehicle in question at least in absence of any rival claimant

Accepting petition, vehicle was handed over to petitioner on Superdari accordingly."

5. As the petitioner is the sole claimant and lawful owner of the vehicle in question at the moment. The vehicle in question is neither a stolen property nor involved in any criminal case, therefore, the same cannot be kept by the police for indefinite period without any further progress in the investigation of the case. The vehicle is likely to be rusted, damaged and deteriorated by parking in police station. In these circumstances, both the Courts below were not justified to refuse the superdari of the vehicle in question to the petitioner. The present petition is, therefore allowed, the impugned orders of both the courts are set aside and the vehicle in question is given to the petitioner on superdari subject to furnishing security bond for Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Ilaqa/Duty Judicial Magistrate. H.B.T./265/P Application allowed.