2020 PLP 1854 (MLD)

ALI BAIG, J.

This criminal revision petition under section 439-A, Cr.P.C has been filed against the impugned judgment/order dated 16-9-2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Gilgit has dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. for superdari of the Car in question which was impounded by the Police in criminal case registered under section 365-B, P.P.C. vide FIR No.83/2019 at Police Station Danyore.

2. Shortly narrated facts of the case are that, some-one had hired Vitz Car of the petitioner bearing No.ISZ.0214284 Chases No.SCP-10-0084428 Model, 2001 and allegedly who had abducted daughter of cpmplainant namely Khush Jan son of Faqir Ali in Car in question, therefore, the local Police arrested the alleged abductor and abductee alongwith the present petitioner and his Car was also impounded. Later on, the Police has released/discharged present petitioner under section 169, Cr.P.C, but Police did not return his Car. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Gilgit for superdari of the vehicle in question, but the learned Sessions Judge, Gilgit has dismissed the application of the present petitioner filed under section 516-A, Cr.P.C, vide the impugned order dated 16-9-2019, hence this criminal revision petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is bona fide owner and purchaser of the Car/Vehicle in question, therefore, he is entitled to get the vehicle on superdari, but the learned Sessions Judge, Gilgit has wrongly declined to allow the petition of the petitioner filed under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the petitioner is last possessor of the Car in question and he has purchased the said Car from one Jabir Khan son of Zafaran resident of Pan Bangalah, Gilgit and there is no rival claimant of aforesaid vehicle, therefore, by accepting this criminal revision petition the vehicle in question may be given to the petitioner on superdari.

4. Conversely, the learned Dy. Advocate General vehemently opposed this revision petition by contending that the vehicle in question has been ceased/impounded in an offence under section 365-A, Cr.P.C, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for superdari of said vehicle. The learned Dy. Advocate General further argued that the petitioner has failed to produce vehicle before the Court of Sessions Judge Gilgit, therefore, the learned court below has rightly dismissed the petition of the petitioner filed under section 516-A. Cr.P.C.

5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record made available before this court with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. From perusal of record it transpires that the car in question bearing NCP registration No. HNZ 01-0622 was owned by one Jabir Kahn son of Zafaran resident of Pari Bangala Gilgit who has sold-out the vehicle in question to the present petitioner vide an agreement dated 24-6-2019, attested by Notary Public. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was taken into custody by police from the possession of the petitioner, as such he is last possessor of said vehicle and there is no rival claimant for superdari of the vehicle.

7. It is settled principle of law, that in case there are no rival claimant for superdari of the vehicle then the vehicle should ordinary be given on superdari to the person from whom it was taken into possession by the police. In the instant case, the petitioner is only person who has claimed superdari of the said car as it was admittedly taken into possession by the police from the custody and direct control of the petitioner.

8. It is also settled law that the criminal courts are not competent to investigate into the question of the title of vehicle as its jurisdiction is confined under section 516-A Cr.P.C or for that matter under section 517 Cr.P.C to determine the entitlement of possession and not title to the property, the question of ownership is to be determined by a competent Civil Court. Moreover , the car in question is at police station Danyore in an open space without any shadow or cover and will decay if the same is kept at police station for an indefinite period, therefore, it would be just and legal to accept this criminal revision petition.

9. In view of above discussion, the criminal revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 16-9-2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit, is set aside. Consequently, the car in question be given on superdari to the petitioner forthwith provided he furunishes surety in sum of Rs.400,000/- with two sureties each in the like amout to thesatisfactin of trial Court. The petitioner is also directed to produce the vehicle in question in the trial Court as and when it is directed for the purpose of trial. This criminal revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. File. SA/167/GB Petition allowed.