1989 PLP 4143 (MLD)

M.A.I. Qarni for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th April, 1989. This is an application under section 561-A Cr.P.C. for quashment of order dated 25-8-1988, passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge (South), Karachi in Criminal Revision Application No. 40 of 1988. The brief facts given rise to the present application are that on 14-11-1979, respondent No. 2 alongwith co-accused Shah Wazir were arrested by CIA Police under sections 420, 458 read with section 34 PPC in Crime No. 219 of 1979. During investigation a car bearing Registration No. 078-509 was also recovered and the accused were challaned before Summary Military Court. Thereafter, there were number of cases between the parties from the lower Court to the High Court, and it is not necessary to repeat the history of the cases so far the disposal of the present application is concerned. However, the Summary Military Court had left the question regarding custody of car open to be decided by Civil Court. The applicant moved an application before the learned A.C.M. C.IA. South for return of the said car which was allowed on 3-1-1981 and the car was given in the custody of the applicant on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 35,

000. Thereafter there was another claimant and there were cases for the possession of the car. However, the applicant filed a suit No. 1253. of 1985 against respondent No. 2 for declaration and injunction which was also dismissed. That the applicant was directed to produce the car in Court but failed to do so and, therefore he was directed to deposit full amount of Rs. 35,100 being the amount of Superdarinama executed by him at the time of obtaining possession of the car. The applicant challenged the above order before the learned Sessions Judge (South), Karachi, and the matter was ultimately heard by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge (South) Karachi, and the revision application was dismissed on 25-8-1.988. The present quashment application has been filed against the above order passed in revision. I have heard Mr. Gul Zaman Khan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant Mr. MA.I. Qarni, learned counsel appearing for the, State, and have gone through the documents. It has been contended by Mr. Gul Zaman Khan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant that he had produced the -car in question before the learned Magistrate on 30-3-1988, and the order of forfeiture was unwarranted, consequently, the order passed in revision was liable to be set aside. Mr. MA.I. Qarni, learned counsel appearing for the State has contended that frame of car produced by the applicant before the Court was without seats, engine, and other parts, as well as accessories. It could not be even ascretained that the skeleton produced by the applicant was that of the car in question. Since the applicant had executed bond for keeping the car in good condition and for producing the same before the Court as and when required, his failure to do so resulted in forfeiture of the bond. Moreover, once a revision was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the same could be challenged by way of quashment application when there was some illegality. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. Admittedly the applicant had executed bond in the sum of Rs. 35,000 while taking possession of the car. The facts and the receipt of the Assistant Attorney dated 31-3-1988, show that only skeleton/frame of a car was produced before the Court without any; accessories, and .engine, and therefore, the learned trial Magistrate was right in forfeiting the bond. No illegality has been pointed out regarding both the orders. The orders passed by the learned trial Court as well as by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge do not suffer from any infirmity and, therefore, they do not call for interference from this Court under extra-ordinary jurisdiction as envisaged under section 561-A Cr.P.C. The application does not merit consideration and, therefore the same is hereby dismissed. M.Y.H./A-599/K Application dismissed.