2021 PLP 1379 (YLR)

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, C.J.

Through the instant petition filed under section 516-A, Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks superdari of his vehicle mentioned in the head note of the petition.

2. Brief facts of prosecution story as narrated in the FIR are that on 08-5-2020 the Petitioner/complainant Hukum Khan had lodged a complaint before the S.H.O. Police Station Basin District Gilgit stating therein that his son namely Abdul Hameed was an employee in City hospital Kashrote and on part time, he used to run taxi car and at 12:00 P.M. he was present at the taxi stand. In the meanwhile two small boys and one young man came there and hired the taxi car of his son, Abdul Hameed. Later on at Basin Khari tortured dead body of his son was found. He had received fire-shots on his head and he also received injuries on his body with knife and sharp objects. The car of the deceased was also lying on the place of occurrence. The dead body of the deceased was present smeared with blood. The SH.O. Police Station Basin registered the above mentioned FIR and the police took into possession the taxi car and dead body of the deceased.

3. The petitioner filed superdari application before the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 08-06-2020, hence, the petitioner filed the instant petition before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the learned trial Court is contrary to law and facts on record, hence not maintainable as the petitioner is real owner of the vehicle in question and his deceased son was last possessor of the vehicle, there is no rival claimant to the said vehicle, the petitioner is ready to furnish solvent sureties to produce the vehicle in Court as and when required if the petition in hand is allowed.

5. On the contrary the learned DAG submitted that according to registration book the petitioner is not real owner and last possessor of the said vehicle, the vehicle in question has been used in commission of an offence, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for superdari of the vehicle in question.

6. I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case with their able assistance.

7. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to substantiate his case through any documentary evidence to show that the present petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the vehicle in question. The said receipt bearing No. 0370 dated 04-01-2020 issued by the Northern Motors and property dealers, River View Road Chinar Bagh, Gilgit shows that the vehicle in question was sold by one Junaid Abbas son of Mohammad Issa resident of Barmas Gilgit but there is no evidence on record that Amir Hussain in whose name the vehicle is registered ever sold the vehicle to Junaid Abbas. The token tax of the vehicle as evident from the Registration book has not been paid since last three years.

8. In the light of what has been discussed above, there is no substance in the instant superdari petition, which is dismissed accordingly. However, the real owner, may apply for superdari of the vehicle after meeting the above defi-ciencies and the learned trial Court shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law, as and when such petition is filed. SA/25/GB Petition dismissed.