2002 PLP 868 (YLR)

Through this writ petition the petitioner prays that jeep No.229/GZR, Pajero be directed to be handed over to the petitioner who is lawful owner of the vehicle.

2. Brief facts of the case, mentioned in the petition, are that petitioner Mst. Manzoor Begum purchased vehicle No.229/GZR from Mian Khalid Rafique son of Muhammad Rafique, who was owner‑in‑possession of the vehicle on the basis of Registration Book. After purchase of the vehicle, the same was transferred in the name of the petitioner. Photo copy of the Registration Book has been annexed with this petition as Annexure‑A. It is stated that the said vehicle was taken into possession by the police of Police Station City Bahawalnagar under section 550, Cr.P.C. vide Report No. 14 dated 12‑6‑2001. Thereafter, the petitioner applied to the Assistant Commissioner/Magistrate, Bahawalnagar under section 523, Cr.P.C. for grant of supurdari/custody of the vehicle which was purchased by petitioner and the Registration Authority had transferred the same in, the name of the petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner/Magistrate passed the order that the vehicle be handed over to the petitioner subject to verification of ownership and furnishing surety bond of Rupees 1 million. The petitioner in compliance of the order of the Assistant Commissioner/Magistrate submitted surety bond and the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 20‑6‑2001 ordered the custody of the vehicle to be given to the petitioner on Superdari. It is stated that the order was taken to respondent No.1 S.H.O and respondent No.2 D.S.P. but they refused to hand over the vehicle and thereafter the petitioner made a complaint to the Assistant Commissioner but in spite of completing all the legal formalities the vehicle is not being handed over to the petitioner.

3. The respondents have filed their parawise comments in pursuance of the notice issued by this Court vide order dated 16‑7‑2001. It is stated by them that during verification of ownership it came to light that the vehicle which was transferred to the petitioner was bearing chasiss No.40499300817 while the vehicle which was taken into possession was bearing chasiss No.404993008477. It is also stated in the comments that according to the report from the Deputy Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore issued vide his Office Order No.682/FSL dated 19‑2‑2001 and LAB No.438 of 2000 chasiss No. of the vehicle was deciphered as C L O 49WLJ‑401368 which was totally different from the chasiss No of the vehicle which was taken into possession. It is further stated that the ownership of the vehicle in question is yet to be determined.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the vehicle and applied for Superdari under section 523, Cr.P.C. to the Assistant Commissioner, who while exercising his jurisdiction ordered the vehicle to be handed over to the petitioner subject to submission of surety bond of Rs.1 million. Further, contends that the petitioner in compliance with the orders the Assistant Commissioner submitted the surety bond of Rs.1 million but even then the vehicle is not being handed over to her.

5. The vehicle in question has been taken into custody by the police under section 550, Cr.P.C. vide Report No. 14 dated 12‑6‑2001. It is obligatory under section 523, Cr.P.C. upon police/S.H.O to report to the nearest Magistrate regarding taking possession of the property under section 51, Cr.P.C. alleged or suspected to have been stolen or found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. See case Government of N.W.F.P. v. Dr. S. Haider Bukhari etc (PLD 1991 SC 604). The. Magistrate or the Assistant; Commissioner has the jurisdiction to release the property and hand over the custody to the person entitled for it, with the undertaking that he would produce before the Court when so required. See: (1997 PLR 537) During the inquiry or trial the Court comes to the conclusion that the vehicle, a property, regarding which any offence appears to have been Committed, or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence, the Court may make an order and exercise Its jurisdiction under section 516‑A of the Cr.P.C. for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of inquiry of trial, and finally on the conclusion of the trial property can be handed over to the real person entitled to retain it under section 517, Cr.P.C. See case of C.M. Safdar v. The State (1968 P.Cr.LJ 936). In the present case, at the present nobody except the petitioner is claiming ownership of the vehicle and the petitioner has produced the Registration Certificate/Registration Book therefore, under section 2(24) of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance she may be considered as the owner on the basis of registration documents. Suffice it to say that entitlement to possession cannot be equated with ownership and orders of interim nature are passed and subsequently if the vehicle is found to be relatable to some offence, then the order of grant of Superdari can be reversed and the same can be taken into custody in that case on the basis o, registration of F.I.R. and the patties contesting and claiming the vehicle may move an application before the Court of competent jurisdiction under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. Here in the case the order of the Assistant Commissioner has been passed for handing over the temporary custody of the vehicle on Superdari in favour of the petitioner subject, to her furnishing surety bond in the sum of Rs.1 million, which she has submitted. The intention of the law‑maker to hand over 'the vehicles on Superdari through interim order is to preserve the property. There is apprehension that if the, vehicle remains with the police for indefinite period the condition and value of the vehicle may be deteriorated, but the petitioner, who is claiming to be lawful owner on the basis of purchasing the property and transfer of registration in her name, will also be deprived, of it. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to hand over vehicle No.229‑GZR to the petitioner subject to compliance of the order of the Assistant Commissioner, with furnishing surety with the undertaking that she would produce the vehicle before the Court when so required. N.H.Q./M‑1300/L Petition allowed.