2001 P Cr (PLP)

Sharafat Ali Khan for the State. As a short point is involved in the case the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Sharafat Ali Khan, Advocate for the State have agreed for the final disposal of the case. According to the prosecution case the present car involved in this revision application is the case property of Crime No. 107 of 1998 of Police Station Thatta registered for offence under section 412, P.P.C. The present applicant who claimed to be the owner of the property filed an application for restoration of car on Superdari before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Thatta who granted the application and allowed the temporary custody of the car bearing registration No. Z‑6909 to the applicant with further direction to obtain such further orders from the other two relevant Courts as the same car was involved in Crime No. 100 of 1998 of same Police Station, Thatta for offence under section 365‑A, P.P.C, and F.I.R. No. 33 of 1998 registered at Police Station Qasimabad, Hyderabad for offence under section 392, P.P.C. read with section 20 of Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. It is pertinent to reproduce the operating part of the impugned order which read as under:‑‑ "In view of the above, the applicant who was in possession of the car before .it was robbed from him is entitled for its temporary custody. I, therefore, direct that the interim custody of car bearing Registration No. Z‑6909 may be given to applicant Jehangir Khan on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000, with directions to produce the car in this Court as and when required. The abovesaid car is also involved in Crime No. 33 of 1998 under section 392, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Qasimabad and Crime No. 100 of 1998 under section 365‑A, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Thatta. The applicant is directed to obtain necessary orders from the concerned Courts for Superdari and thereafter the same shall be given to him. " The learned counsel for the applicant, has submitted that the applicant may be exempted from furnishing surety and only personal bond be taken and further that the order under which the applicant was required to obtain necessary orders from the other two Courts may also be struck down. The learned counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance on the cases reported in 1993 PCr.LJ page 481, 1997 PCr.LJ page 1006 and 1985 PCr.LJ 1175. The learned counsel, undertakes to produce the property as and when required by any other two Courts. The F.I.R. No. 100 of 1998 is registered for offence under section 365‑A, Cr.P.C. which offence is triable by Special Court (S.T.A.) and such order can only be passed by the trial Court or by a Division Bench of this Court in appeal or revision. The State Counsel on the other hand has said that let the car be restored to the applicant but subject to the furnishing of surety as ordered by the trial Court. I have considered the arguments and also gone through the impugned order. I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Court below as admittedly the abovesaid car is involved in two other cases and its production will be necessary before the Courts at the time of trial and therefore, under such circumstances the applicant must obtain such orders from the concerned Court. In view of the above discussion and factual position this Criminal C Revision Application merits no consideration and the same is dismissed in limine. N.H.Q./J‑13/K Revision petition dismissed.