2001 PLP 1371 (YLR)

1. Granted for the time being subject to all just exceptions.

2. Learned A.A.-G. has pointed out that vide orders passed in ATA Cr. Revision Application Nos.27 of 1999 and 32 of 1999 a Division Bench of this Court has held that no revision could be competent under the provisions of Anti Terrorism, Act, 1997. Except this technical objection, the learned A.A.-G. otherwise does not object to allowing of the prayer.

3. We, therefore, would convert this revision application : in a Constitutional petition and dispose of the same accordingly.

4. The facts of the case are that on 17-4-2001 at evening time while the applicant was at a shop alongwith other family members near Hassan Square, some four persons in Shalwar Kameez came and robbed Suzuki Margala Car No.ABM-940, Model 1998 from him. The applicant lodged such report at Police Station Gulshan-e-Iqbal soon thereafter. The robbed car was secured by Police on the next day in abandoned condition, whereafter the applicant approached the trial Court. (Anti-Terrorism Court No.III) and prayed for release of the vehicle to him on superdnama under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. but his prayer was rejected on the ground that the applicant was demanding the car on the basis of the general power of attorney so his prayer was not maintainable.

5. We have perused the record and heard the learned counsel. The applicant was constituted as General Attorney by his uncle Dr. Rao Muhammad Saleem who is stated to be presently living at Saint Louis No.63143, United States of America in connection with his job. The Photostat copy of power of attorney bears the date as 15-4-1998, which authorizes the applicant, his possessing, keeping and dealing etc. of the said car. The applicant and the family members of Dr. Rao Muhammad Saleem are, as further stated, using the car.

6. The Photostat copy of the Registration Book of the car bears the name of Dr. Rao Muhammad Saleem as the owner of the car. There is no other claimant of the car so far. It is the prosecution stand that the car was snatched from the applicant while he was in its possession. The law permits delivery of case property of a criminal case on superdnama to the person from whose possession it was taken away.

7. We would, therefore, direct the delivery of the above car to the applicant subject to his furnishing a surety in the sum of Rs.4,00,000 (Rs. Four lacs only) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. The petition stands', disposed of. H.B.T./M-227/K????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.