2014 P Cr (PLP)

SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA, J.

This revision petition under section 439, Cr.P.C. has been directed against the judgment/order dated 15-5-2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Peshawar whereby he dismissed the application of the petitioner for superdari of vehicle bearing Registration No.JZ-469/Islamabad till the final decision of case F.I.R. No.190 dated 24-4-2013 under section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 registered at Police Station, Mathra District Peshawar.

2. The relevant facts for disposal of the instant revision petition are that on 24-4-2013 19.30 hours Sajid Mumtaz Inspector/SHO along with his police contingents was present near Faqie Kalay Chowk within the limits of Police Station, Mathra intercepted the vehicle bearing No.JZ 469/Islamabad in which two persons namely Ahsan Riaz driver and Shehbaz Ahmad were sitting who were deboarded from the vehicle and on search 40 packets of Charas Pukhta containing 1/1 kilogram each total weighing 40 kilograms were recovered from the diggy of the vehicle which were taken into possession along with the vehicle in question. Both the above named accused were arrested on the spot and a case under the aforesaid section was registered against them. The petitioner has applied for the grant of the vehicle in question on superdari to him before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Peshawar which was dismissed vide order dated 15-5-2013. Hence this petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on file.

4. The stance of the petitioner is that he is the actual and sole owner and there is no other rival claimant of the same but at the same time there is nothing on record to show that from whom the petitioner has purchased the vehicle in question. No doubt the petitioner is neither involved in the main case F.I.R. No. 190 dated 24-4-2013 under section 9(c), C.N.S.A. registered at Police Station, Mathra nor he has been arrested on the spot but still the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that nothing has been brought on record to show in black and white that the incriminating substance recovered from the vehicle in question was transported with the consent, connivance or complicity of the petitioner, has no force because at this stage when the trial of the case has not been concluded it cannot be said with certainty that the petitioner was not in the conscious knowledge of the recovered contraband from the vehicle in question. Since the vehicle in question is involved in case F.I.R. No.190 dated 24-4-2013 under section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 from which huge quantity of contraband Charas weighing forty kilograms has been recovered, therefore, the vehicle in question being case property of the aforementioned case has to be exhibited during the trial of the said case and the same cannot be granted to the petitioner on superdari because at this stage no material is available on record that petitioner is ostensible owner of the vehicle, superdari of which has been sought. Thus in view of the above facts and circumstances the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly refused the custody of the vehicle on superdari to the petitioner and in this regard his order is well-founded and I find no illegality in it to warrant interference in it.

5. Resultantly, this criminal revision petition is dismissed in limine. MWA/450/P Petition dismissed.