1994 PLP 1643 (SCMR)

SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑Through this petition leave is sought against order dated 11‑7‑1993 passed by the High Court, whereby learned Judge in Chamber dismissed writ petition maintaining order of Superdari passed in revision in favour of respondent No. 2 Maqsood Ahmed.

2. Briefly stated the relevant facts in the background are that petitioner herein namely Mirza Muzaffar Baig filed F.I.R. No. 46/89 at P.S. Baghbanpura, District Gujranwala on 22‑2‑1989 claiming therein that his vehicle Hilux Registration No. 649‑LHN Engine No. 0832937, Colour Kaleji (dark Brown), Model 1984, was stolen. On 6‑2‑1992 he filed another F.I.R. No.35/92 at P.S. Daska, District Silakot and stated therein that his vehicle was stolen in respect of which he had filed F.I.R. before and he had seen and identified his vehicle at police station and, therefore, filed second F.I.R.

3. According to police report, one Abdul Munim alias Munawar, while in custody, during investigation revealed that he had stolen several vehicles and sold to different persons. Vehicle in question was taken into possession under section 560, Cr.P.C. Mirza Muzaffar Baig and Maqsood Ahmed, both rival claimants filed applications for obtaining the vehicle on Superdari and both were heard by Assistant Commissioner/M.I.C., Daska. After hearing the parties and examining documents produced by them in support of their claims, Assistant Commissioner/M.I.C passed order of Superdari in favour of Mirza Muzaffar Baig and rejected the claim of Maqsood Ahmed on the ground that although vehicle was recovered from him and he produced registration book but his title appeared to be defective.

4. In revision proceedings order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was reversed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot. It was found that vehicle in question bore Chasis No. 2288449 and Engine No. 1155173 with Registration No. LHO‑7067 in the name of Muhammad Hanif. Learned A.S.J. was of the view that even if contention raised on behalf of Mirza Muzaffar Baig is accepted that new numbers as mentioned above, were given after eraser of original numbers, then too there was no proof in support of the assertion that vehicle is same as described in F.I.R. and its chasis and engine numbers have been changed. In such circumstances order was passed that vehicle be handed over on temporary basis to the person from whom it was recovered. Nigh Court has agreed with the finding of learned A.S.J and dismissed the petition as stated above.

5. Before us contentions are raised on behalf of the petitioner that Maqsood Ahmed had filed application for Superdari of Vehicle No. 7067‑LHO Model 1986 but the vehicle in dispute is Model of 1984. Secondly, Maqsood Ahmed claims vehicle with three cylinders while vehicle in dispute is of four cylinders. These questions are of technical nature and can be answered by a person who is well versed with the subject and has technical know‑how. We are informed that during the proceedings in the High Court record was summoned from Motor Vehicle Authority and Inspector Muhammad Hanif had come to the Court but the case could not reach on that day and on the next date the matter was disposed of in the absence of the record. It is submitted that above contentions were raised before the High Court as well. In the circumstances we are of the view that for the purpose of correct identification of the vehicle in question, answers to the questions with regard to model and number of sylinders would be helpful. Leave is granted and petition is converted into appeal and allowed. In the result impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the High Court for fresh decision after obtaining the relevant information from some competent officer of Motor Vehicles Authority. AA./M‑1943/S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.