2020 P Cr (PLP)

SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J.

Case of the applicant is that he purchased the property that is vehicle bearing registration No.ANM 508 corolla model 2007 from one Samar Abbas who had received possession on superdari basis pursuant to order dated 04.05.2011 passed by learned Magistrate, Khairpur in Criminal Case No.148/2009, subsequently application was preferred by the applicant before the learned Magistrate No.VI at Karachi and that was decided in favour of applicant that he is the last possessor of the car which was found inside parking wherefrom same was captured by the bank being owner. Learned counsel for applicant contends that learned appellate judge has travelled beyond his jurisdiction while pronouncing judgment whereas he was required to pass order and in his judgment he has decided even title of the vehicle which was not his mandate. He further contends that there are three claimants of the vehicle in question, vehicle is lying with the Nazir, civil suits are pending, therefore it would be in the interest of justice to refer the matter for decision by the civil court.

2. In contra learned counsel for the bank contends that impugned judgment is in accordance with law, vehicle is owned by the bank, decree is in favour of bank that is still in field. Order dated 04.05.2011 passed by learned Magistrate in Criminal Case No.148/2009 emanating from FIR lodged by Sammar Abbas, is completely against the law and purchasing by the applicant from Sammar Abbas is illegal because he (Soomar Abbas) was only allowed to retain the possession of the vehicle on superdari basis as well learned Magistrate failed to examine the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2017 passed by the Banking Court and ownership in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.41/2017, accordingly impugned judgment is in accordance with law.

3. Learned DPG also supported the version of the bank as well judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No.70/2017.

4. There can be no denial to the legal position that a person, possessing a vehicle under superdari order, legally cannot sell-out the same because such possession is not a proof of title. In other words, such person was/is always required to retain possession within limitation(s), so detailed in the order as well bond, executed for taking possession. Admittedly title documents are in favour of the bank coupled with the decree passed by the Banking Court. Though, while deciding such like claims in Criminal matters the Courts are not required to adjudicate upon the title/ownership but entitlement must be examined. Since, the title documents were in favour of bank and even possession was with it though claimed to be in illegal manner which, however, cannot be dilated upon by a Criminal Courts. Thus, prima facie, entitlement lies in favour of the Bank so was rightly concluded by appellate Court. Further, property is lying with the Nazir which, however, shall not serve any purpose of justice rather letting it (vehicle) under such custody would surely bring the value of vehicle down. The applicant has filed civil suit which, too, cannot be taken sufficient to let the property rot. Accordingly instant revision is dismissed. Property shall be handed over to the bank. This, however, would not prejudice to the claims and entitlement of applicant, pending adjudication before Civil Court. Needless to mention that title of an order as 'judgment' would never prejudice legality thereof but could, at the most, would be a clerical error having no legal consequences. Even otherwise, this has not caused any prejudice to the applicant. MQ/M-115/Sindh Application dismissed.