2017 PLP 722 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.

This is a writ petition whereby petitioner has challenged order dated 29-05-2015 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Gilgit, who, through the said order, given the vehicle No.NWFP-W-1568, Engine No.7475026, Chasis No.142051, in the superdari of respondent No.1.

2. Learned counsel for parties, at the outset of arguments, argued on the maintainability of this petition. Petitioner moved this petition only because without setting aside impugned order he could not obtain the subject vehicle nor he could become party to the proceedings before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who passed the impugned order. So, in our opinion, the petition in hand is competent as we found that petitioner has no other remedy under the laws governing the criminal cases of the nature of case in hand.

3. Brief facts of the circumstances entailing to the impugned order are that the vehicle in question, which is admittedly a Pakistan made vehicle named as Shehzore, was stolen from Taimargrah, Dir. The owner of the said vehicle is Mr. Abdul Saleem who lodged the report of theft in Police Station Ayub Shaheed Taimargrah, on 11-10-2008. Police of said Police Station chalked FIR No.847/08 in the said Police Station. Later on, the occurrence of theft of said vehicle was conveyed to the traffic branch Gilgit, who after underground investigations, came to the conclusion that the said vehicle was in possession of petitioner. Traffic Police of Police Station Danyore chalked FIR No.17/15 against the respondent No.1. Police took the vehicle in their possession and the respondent No.1 applied for its custody before the Senior Civil Judge Gilgit, who through his order dated 05-05-2015, dismissed the said petition. On this, respondent No.1 filed Criminal Revision No.03/15 in the Sessions Court Gilgit, who assigned the same to the Additional Sessions Court Gilgit, who passed impugned order and gave the subject vehicle to respondent No.1. Further later on, petitioner came to know about the presence of vehicle in Police Station Danyore and applied to the learned Senior Civil Judge Gilgit for superdari of the subject vehicle. Through order dated 23-05-2015, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Gilgit ordered for giving the subject vehicle in superdari of petitioner and petitioner accordingly approached the Police Station Danyore, who informed that the subject vehicle has already been given in superdari of respondent No.1 in the light of impugned order. Then petitioner had to move this petition impugning the impugned order.

4. We have heard learned counsel for parties at length and have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for parties. In the case in hand, learned counsel for parties debated on the title of the subject vehicle. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner has filed a document showing title of the petitioner to one Mr. Mohammad Saleem, who has insured the vehicle in the Bank Alfalah. Soon after report of theft of the vehicle, Mr. Mohammad Saleem obtained insured amount from the bank, therefore, the subject vehicle is ownership of the said bank and petitioner is nominee of the said bank. Moreover, it is not disputed that the subject vehicle is Pakistan made and cannot be used without proper documentation. In the above circumstances, we have marked the document showing title of Mr. Mohammad Saleem as Exh.C/1. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 could not show any document showing title of respondent to the vehicle. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 just contended that he has purchased the subject vehicle from a person.

5. In the sequel of above discussion, we are of the view that the subject vehicle is stolen property and cannot be handed over to the respondent No.1 who is either himself the person who committed theft of the said vehicle or hardly purchaser of the same and the person who sold the subject vehicle to him may be the thief himself or any other person who has purchased the theft property. As compared to respondent No.1, petitioner has prima facie better title to the subject vehicle. At this stage of the case, we rely on Exh.C/1 and allow this petition, set aside impugned order and direct the police of Police Station concerned for obtaining the vehicle from the respondent No.1 and handing over the same to the petitioner. We further hold that bonds executed by the respondent No.1 in the light of impugned order will remain intact until the subject vehicle is handed over to the petitioner in the light of this order. The police station concerned should obtain bonds from the petitioner in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, whereby, petitioner will have to undertake to hand over the subject vehicle to the police station as and when the same is required for any legal proceeding. Petition allowed. This file be consigned to record. HBT/54/GB Petition allowed.