2011 PLP 377 (YLR)

MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL,J.

Petitioner, herein, through instant petition under section 516-A read with 561-A, Cr.P.C. for the return/custody of the vehicle having Registration No.2380/LEE on superdari till final decision of the case, which was refused to him by the lower forum.

2. The local police of Police Station, Sher Garh, while on routine patrol intercepted a white colour Toyota Corolla XLI having Registration No.2380/LEE being driven by the present petitioner, who at the relevant time failed to produce any such document reflecting him to be the genuine owner in possession of the vehicle, so the police took the vehicle in custody under sections 523/550, Cr.P.C. and entered a report in Daily Diary at Serial No.7 dated 5-9-2010. The petitioner too, was arrested by the local police under section 54 of Cr.P.C. After conducting a proper inquiry under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. the police of Police Station Sher Garh, registered a case vide F.I.R. No.667 dated 1-10-2010 under sections 419/420/ 468/471, P. P. C., wherein Muhammad Hayat son of Gul Karim resident of Chail Bagh village Lund Khuar, was nominated as an accused from whom the present petitioner purchased the said vehicle against a sale consideration of Rs.11,00,000.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case submitted that the petitioner being the bona fide purchaser of the vehicle in question in lieu of Rs.11,00,000 has nothing to do with the offences with which the accused in the case has been charged; that there is nothing on the record to reflect involvement of the petitioner in any manner with regard to cheating or forgery, for which the previous owner has been charged from whom the present petitioner purchased the vehicle; being the bona fide purchaser and last possessed of the vehicle in question, he under the law is entitled to the custody of the vehicle in question. He further submitted that there is sufficient material available on the record reflecting the bona fide purchase of the vehicle.

4. As against that the learned State counsel Mr. Matiullah Khan Baloch, submitted that the vehicle in question, bearing the registration Number of Lahore has been confirmed by the MRA, Lahore that said registration book of the vehicle was not issued by him. Similarly, the FSL report which too is positive in the sense that the chassis number were deciphered, so in this view of the matter the petitioner is not entitled to the custody of such a vehicle having a doubtful registration and chassis number. Learned counsel for the parties were heard and record was perused,

5. The same would reveal that the present petitioner has claimed himself to be the bona fide purchaser of the vehicle, though was not in possession of any such documents reflecting his status, as such at the interception by the police, but during the course of inquiry under section 156(3) -of Cr.P.C. he not only produced the relevant documents in the shape of a sale deed but the inquiry officer also recorded the statements of the scribe of the sale-deed as well as marginal witnesses of the deed, who all confirmed the factum of sale by said Muhammad Hayat in favour of present petitioner. The statement of present petitioner was also recorded before a Judicial Magistrate under section 164, Cr.P.C., wherein he has categorically supported his version.

6. The police after inquiry had registered a case vide F.I.R. ibid against Muhammad Hayat, who is the person who had sold the vehicle in question to the present petitioner and no denial of the fact of sale has come forward from the mouth of Muhammad Hayat accused in 'the case. The particulars of the vehicle have well been mentioned in the sale-deed which establishes the fact that whatever was done with the vehicle, was not done by the present petitioner.

7. It is established on the record that the vehicle in question has no criminal history as there is nothing on the record to reflect that the same was either a stolen property or was ever used in the commission of any offence. No rival claimant of the vehicle in question has come forward to claim its ownership, so when this being the situation a vehicle of the value of more than a million cannot be left in the custody of the police, who surely will be finis-utilizing the same. Only allegations of having a bogus registration or a tampered chassis number, custody of the vehicle to a person claiming himself to be the bona fide purchaser which prima facie on the record is also established, cannot be refused to him. So in this view of the matter, this Court having no other option but to allow this petition and to order the custody/superdari of the vehicle to the petitioner till decision of the case, on furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs.14,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Deputy Judicial Magistrate. Needless to say that the sureties should be local and men of means. The vehicle in question should be handed over to the petitioner according to the inventory made by the local police at the time of taking its custody. Before parting with the judgment, it seems appropriate to mention here that decision of instant petition was not possible without discussing the merits of the case. So, any such finding is supposed not to prejudice the mind of the Court. H.B.T./396/P?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.