1992 P Cr (PLP)

Syed Shabbir Hussain Shah for Petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 10‑9‑1991 and 21‑9‑1991 respectively passed by a learned Magistrate of the First Class, Haripur, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge I, Haripur refusing to give custody of Suzuki Pick‑up No.PRF‑7537 to the petitioner.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that on 30‑8‑1991 at 8‑30 hours, one Aurangzeb alias Toru attempted to abduct Mst. Sajida Parveen and Farzana Shaheen when they had boarded the aforesaid Suzuki Pick‑up for visiting the Jail Hospital. The two females appeared to be the lone travellers on account of which perhaps the aforesaid driver took undue advantage and instead of dropping them in front of the Hospital sped away the Pick‑up towards Khanpur. The females, in order to save their modesty and honour, had jumped from the running vehicle sustaining grievous injuries including one fracture each.

3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge declined the interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner on two‑fold grounds: firstly that it had been used in a heinous crime and, secondly, that the petitioner could not substantiate by documentary evidence his title thereto.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has reiterated his contention which he had earlier raised before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the abduction was the individual act of the driver for which the owner of the vehicle could not be made to suffer.

5. The sole point for determination in the present case is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the interim custody of vehicle pending trial of Aurangzeb alias Toru on the serious charge of attempting to commit the offences of abduction and `Zina' in very shuddering circumstances. It is not a case under section 523, Cr.P.C., of disposal of property simpliciter seized during the investigation and referred to the Magistrate concerned who could pass an appropriate order thereon. On the contrary, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused had committed the offence in and by virtue of the vehicle itself. The vehicle in which the two females were seated `appeared to have been used for the commission of offence' occurring in section 516‑A, Cr.P.C. No doubt, the interim custody of the vehicle was refused to the petitioner. Nonetheless, the vehicle has been impounded for parking in the police station concerned. Neither the learned counsel for the petitioner could point out any illegality in the impugned order nor I could detect one particularly when the vehicle had been allegedly used as a means towards the accomplishment of the crime of a very heinous nature. The petitioner has also not been able to place on record document to substantiate his claim to the vehicle. Thus, the grounds which found favour with the learned revisional Court in not entertaining the petitioner's prayer are unexceptionable.

6. For the foregoing reasons, I find no substance in this petition under) section 561‑A, Cr.P.C., which is dismissed in limine. N.H.Q./1292/P Petition dismissed in limine.