2005 PLP 863 (YLR)

4. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that vehicle in‑question was taken into possession by the police authority from the petitioner, therefore, under the law, the petitioner is entitled to take possession of the vehicle in‑question on Superdari. He further submits that the petitioner has lodged F.I.R. qua the vehicle in‑question after knowing that the documents of vehicle in‑.question are not genuine.

5. The learned Law Officer submits that according to the contents of F.I.R. and this petition, the petitioner has admitted that the documents of the vehicle' in‑question are not genuine, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to take possession of the vehicle in question.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.

7. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the basic facts in chronological order to resolve the controversy between the parties: (1) Nobody has come forward till date to claim/own the ownership of vehicle in‑question having in possession of the documents relating to the vehicle in‑question. (2) F.I.R. was lodged by the petitioner himself. (3) The petitioner lodged F.I.R. that he has purchased the vehicle in question for consideration of Rs.5,27,000 from respondent No.4, whose whereabouts are not known to Investigating Officer/S.‑I. concerned of the area, as is stated by him before this Court and also submitted his report to this extent. (4) According to his report, respondent No.4 is involved in two criminal cases. (5) Respondent No.3 has taken stand that he has purchased the vehicle in question from respondent No.4, when he came to know that the documents of vehicle in‑question are not genuine, then he returned the said vehicle to respondent No.4. (6) The vehicle in‑question was taken by the police authority from the possession of the petitioner. In case, the aforesaid facts are put in juxta‑position, then orders of Courts below are not in accordance with law laid down by the Superior Courts and also not in terms of mandatory provisions of section 516‑A, Cr.P.C.

8. It is settled principle of law that in case, there are no rival claimants of Superdari of vehicle in‑question then vehicle should ordinarily be given on Superdari to the person, from whom it was taken possession by the police authority, as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Malik Muhammad Rafique's case" 1986 SCMR 1539. The reference can also be made in "Hamayun Akhtar's case" 1999 MLD 1676. It is pertinent to mention here that the delivery of vehicle on Superdari is meant primarily for the purpose of protection of property and to avoid further deterioration. It cannot be used as proof of ownership, as per law laid down by the Federal Shariat Court in "Haji Muhammad Ismail's case" 1992 PCr. LJ

988. The aforesaid preposition of law is also supported by law laid down by the Federal Shariat Court in "Abdul Bari's case" PLJ 1991 Federal Shariat Court

330. It is pertinent to mention here that in any case leaving the vehicle in‑question in custody of the police, then it will not serve any purpose except reducing its utility, as per law laid down by the Sindh High Court in "Haji Rab Nawaz's case" 1988 PCr.LJ 1353.

9. In this view of the matter, the respondents are directed to hand over the vehicle in‑question to the petitioner after furnishing his personal surety to the satisfaction of respondent No.1 (concerned Illaqa Judicial Magistrate). The petitioner shall not sell the vehicle in‑question to any third party till the decision of this case and shall produce the same as and when it requires before the competent Court/forum. In case, any person who is in possession of genuine documents of the vehicle in‑question, then he is entitled to file an application for review of this order. With these observations, this criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges. H.B.T./A‑342/L Order accordingly.