2013 P Cr (PLP)

QAISER RASHID KHAN, J.

Aggrieved of the order dated 19-5-2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, D.I. Khan vide which the motorcar Suzuki Cultus bearing Registration No.LED-1276 having Engine No.F-411108 and Chassis No.381125 was given on superdari to respondent No.2, the petitioner, Muhammad Ramzan has filed the instant petition.

2. Brief facts of the instant case are that the motorcar Suzuki Cultus bearing Registration No.LED-1276 having Engine No.F-411108 and Chassis No.381125 being the joint ownership of United Bank Limited, Davis Road Branch, Lahore and one Saqib Nazeer was insured with E.F.U. General Insurance Limited Karachi. The vehicle was stolen with its original documents and in this regard a case F.I.R. No.382 dated 21-6-2008 was registered at Police Station Batala Colony, Faisalabad (Punjab). Due to the theft, E.F.U. General Insurance Limited paid the claim of Rs.5,15,000 of said Saqib Nazeer and in this respect a Letter of Subrogation was issued in favour of the E.F.U. General Insurance Limited. The vehicle in question was recovered from one Mausam Khan respondent No.2 by the R.I.U. Staff, D.I. Khan vide daily diary No.10 dated 16-8-2010 under sections 523/550, Cr.P.C. and subsequently a case vide F.I.R. No.695 dated 3-10-2010 was registered at Police Station City, D.I. Khan.

3. The petitioner filed an application for getting the vehicle on superdari but the same was refused by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, D.I. Khan vide order dated 2-9-2010. The petitioner again filed another application for superdari of the said vehicle which was also turned down by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, D.I. Khan vide order dated 23-9-2010. Still not satisfied; the petitioner filed an application for the same purpose before the learned Sessions Judge, D.I. Khan whereas respondent No.2 also applied for superdari of the said vehicle. Both the applications were entrusted to the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, D.I. Khan for disposal who after hearing the arguments, turned down the request of petitioner for superdari of the vehicle and accepted the application of respondent No.2 vide order dated 19-5-2011. Hence the instant petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order is against law and based on absolute misreading and non-reading of the record; that the vehicle in question is a stolen one and in this respect a proper F.I.R. was registered at Faisalabad; that after payment of the insurance claim, the E.F.U. General Insurance Limited has become the lawful owner of the vehicle and that too, after a Letter of Subrogation signed by the owner of the vehicle namely, Saqib Nazeer; that the respondent No.2 claims to have become the owner of the stolen vehicle on the basis of a stolen Registration Book; that it has been wrongly held by the learned lower Court that the respondent No.2 had purchased the vehicle from its original owner namely, Saqib Nazeer; that the petitioner being the authorized representative of the E.F.U. General Insurance is entitled to the superdari of the vehicle.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 defended the impugned judgment for the reasons mentioned therein. He argued that the respondent No.2 is not an accused in case F.I.R. No.382 dated 21-6-2008 registered at Faisalabad; that the alleged letter of subrogation is not an authentic document; that the petitioner has no authority to claim the superdari of the vehicle; that the respondent No.2 being in possession of the Registration Book of the vehicle, as well as open transfer letter is entitled to the superdari of the vehicle.

6. The learned State Counsel on his turn argued that the E.F.U. General Insurance Limited is entitled to the return of the vehicle and moreover the vehicle cannot be given to the respondent No.2 who is an accused in case F.I.R. No.695 dated 3-10-2010 registered at Police Station City, D.I. Khan.

7. Arguments heard and record perused.

8. The record reveals that initially the vehicle was registered in the name of its original owner namely, Saqib Nazeer who held the same under hire purchase agreement with United Bank Limited, Davis Road Branch, Lahore and as per the bank's standing policy, the same was got insured with the E.F.U. General Insurance Company and during the currency of the insurance policy, the vehicle was stolen in respect of which F.I.R. No.382 was lodged on 21-6-2008 under section 381-A, P.P.C. at Police Station Batala Colony, Faisalabad by Saqib Nazeer. As per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the said Insurance Company honoured the claim of the owner namely, Saqib Nazeer by paying him a sum of Rs.5,15,000 and the latter in turn executed a Letter of Subrogation in favour of the Company whereunder he transferred his rights, title and interest in the said vehicle to the Company and held the vehicle to be the sole property of E.F.U. General Insurance Company. On recovery of the vehicle from the possession of the respondent No.2 and after proper investigation, an F.I.R. No.695 dated 3-10-2010 under section 411, P.P.C. was registered against him at Police Station City, D.I. Khan. The argument of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 regarding the purchase of the vehicle from Saqib Nazeer stands belied on account of F.I.R. No.382 dated 21-6-2008 under section 381-A, P.P.C. Police Station Batala colony, Faisalabad by none other put Saqib Nazeer himself. The mere possession of a stolen Registration Book of a stolen vehicle per se does not confer any title upon the respondent No.2 to retain the vehicle. The E.F.U. General Insurance Company, after the theft of the vehicle from Faisalabad, as per its insurance policy having honoured the claim and in view of the Letter of Subrogation executed by its original owner is entitled to the retention of the vehicle by way of superdari. The petitioner Muhammad Ramzan being the authorized representative of the Company as per letter of authority dated 6-8-2010 issued by the Senior Vice-President, Motor Department; Head Office Karachi is thus entitled to get the possession of the vehicle on superdari.

9. For the reasons mentioned above, the instant petition is accepted, the impugned order dated 19-5-2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, D.I. Khan is set aside. The local police is directed to recover the vehicle from the respondent No.2 and to hand it over to petitioner on superdari, on furnishing security bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner shall also undertake that he will not dispose of vehicle till the disposal of the main case and will produce the same as and when required by the Court. MWA/244/P Petition allowed.