1974 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑ S. 516‑A‑Custody of property [truck]‑‑Truck, involved in crime, if out of use in malkhana‑Likely to depreciate in value during rainy season‑Truck, as a matter of propriety, held, to be given in custody of owner‑Security; however, to be furnished by person resident of and having property in Province of Court concerned‑-Court to satisfy itself about ownership and to assess security amount a little more than actual value. Ahmed Sated Kirmani for Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Younas for the State. N8 is a revision petition on behalf of Fazal Dad challenging the order dated 25th July, 1973, passed by Mr. Abdul Shakoor, Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Campbellpur:

2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of truck No. RIB‑5042; which was seized by the police during the investigation of a case registered against one Ghulam Sarwar under section 3/6 of the Pure Food Stuff Control Act, 1958. It is alleged that Ghulam Sarwar, driver of the truck, was carrying ata to another province, which is prohibited by law. The driver is being tried for the aforesaid offences. No evidence in the case has so far been recorded.

3. On 20th July, 1973, Qureshi Abdul Shakoor, Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Campbellpur, allowed the petitioner the custody (superdari) of the truck and directed him to furnish security in the sum of Rs. 60,000 and to produce the truck in Court in the same condition if and when required to do so.

4. On the following day, an application was made on behalf of the State before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Campbellpur, alleging that 90 bags of ata were being transported to N. W. F. P. in the truck which was checked at Jhari Kas. The truck and the goods were seized by the Hassanabadal Police and as the truck is liable to be confiscated in view of the provisions of section 6 of the West Pakistan Pure Food Stuff (Control) Act, 1958, the order of Superdari of the truck dated 20th July, 1973, be recalled. It was also alleged that since the superdar belonged to a different province, which is beyond the jurisdiction of Court at Campbellpur, it will, therefore, be difficult to forfeit the security in case the truck is made to disappear. After hearing both sides, the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Campbellpur, revised his earlier order and refused the custody of the truck to the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that after having passed do order of superdari on 20th July, 1973, the trial Court was not competent to recall the same. In support of his contention, he has relied on Faiz Ahmad v. The Stare (1970 P Cr. L J 1233). In the cited case, there was one additional fact that no notice was given to the petitioner before the order was revised. However, I am of the view that in the rainy season, if the truck remains out of use in the malkhana, its value is likely to depreciate. As a matter of propriety, the custody of the truck should be given to the owner on a security to be furnished by a person of this province, whose property is also situated in this province. The Court should also satisfy itself w about the ownership of the truck. The amount of security to be determined afresh because such security is always a, little more than the actual value of the truck.

6. While accepting the petition, I direct the trial Court to reassess the value of the. truck for the purposes of the security and the custody be allowed to the petitioner if the aforementioned conditions are satisfied. The truck will, of course, be produced in Court if and when directed. Order accordingly.