Superdari of vehicle

Report submitted by City Police Officer revealed that the vehicle in question pertained to case FIR No. 569 of 2020 registered under Ss.457, 380 & 511, P.P.C

Complainant registered the FIR against four unknown accused persons for attempting to commit theft of tower batteries

Later, the complainant nominated "S" as an accused in the FIR

Said fact suggested that "S", to whom a finance facility was extended, was named in the said FIR

Present petitioner was the sole claimant of the vehicle to date, who had the original documents/excise file

Report submitted by the City Police Officer revealed that UBL concerned branch issued a letter stating that on 24.01.2024 a certificate was issued by UBL Bank to DPO, verifying that the vehicle in question was leased to the customer, "S", under the Higher Purchase Agreement (HPA)/Finance Agreement with United Bank Limited

Bank verified that United Bank Limited owned the vehicle

Bank also verified that the original file/excise file and a copy of the registration book were available in the bank record

Original registration book was handed over to the customer

As the vehicle in question, the bank financed the vehicle to the customer for 60th Months" installment plan, which started from April 2017 and matured on March 2022; customer deposited only 41 installments till the month of August 2020, thereafter defaulted in payment of monthly lease rental and at present, an amount of Rs.655,594.90/- was still outstanding against the said vehicle/customer and thereafter it was seized in case FIR No. 569/2020

In the circumstances, the retention of the car in question in police possessions for an indefinite period would mean a completely damaged and deteriorated condition of the vehicle

Neither of the Courts below was justified in refusing the superdari of car in question to the petitioner

Petition was allowed by setting aside the impugned orders, in circumstances.

Complaint was filed by the police against the accused-petitioner with the allegation that due to negligent and careless driving of accused, the vehicle in question hit a car, which resulted into death of two ladies and injuries to three other persons

Consequently, the FIR was lodged and the vehicle in question was taken into custody by the police

Application filed by the petitioner for release of vehicle on superdari was dismissed

Validity

Admittedly, the vehicle in question detained in the case was not the subject matter of any offence

Admitted feature of the case was that the vehicle in question actually was owned by a company, which was being driven by the petitioner/accused, thus, the company had nothing to do with the commission of the offence and it could not be held liable for what its driver had done

In such a situation, the Court was bound to release the vehicle to its respective owner for proper custody

Admittedly, the vehicle in question was taken into custody by the police from the possession of the petitioner, as such, he was last possessor of the vehicle in question and there was no rival claimant for superdari of the same

In case, there is no rival claimant for superdari of the vehicle then the vehicle should ordinary be given on superdari to the person from whom it is taken into possession by the police

Petitioner was the only person, who had claimed superdari of the vehicle in question, as it was admittedly taken into possession by the police from his custody and direct control

Revision petition was allowed and the vehicle in question was ordered to be released on superdari to the petitioner.

Petitioner moved an application for Superdari of the vehicle impounded in a criminal case, which application was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate whereas the Sessions Court upheld the said order

Validity

Admittedly respondent No. 01 had purchased the impugned vehicle from one "AK" who purchased the same from one "GK"

At present the petitioner was not the owner of the impounded vehicle

Certificate issued by Pak Suzuki Motors Company showed that impugned vehicle was sold to "AA" and both the documents i.e. letter pad of "U" Motors and sale certificate of Pak Suzuki Motors clearly showed that neither the petitioner was owner of impugnded vehicle nor he was last possessor of vehicle in question

Record showed that during the first round of litigation the claim of the petitioner up to the Chief Court was not accepted and the Superdari of alleged vehicle was granted to the respondent No. 1 being last possessor, which he purchased form one "AK", as such at present the petitioner had no locus standi to again claim the superdari of vehicle in question

Writ petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Said Mr. "N" sold it to Mr. "MA", who applied to a bank for an auto loan and under that arrangement, got it registered in its name on 02.09.2006

Mr. "MA" paid off his loan after five years, whereupon the Bank issued a No Objection Certificate dated 18.07.2021 asking the Motor Registration Authority to delete its name from the record

Moreover, it also certified that it had no objection regarding its further sale/change of ownership

On 07.08.2019, Mr. "MA" got the car transferred in his own name, and on 09.11.2019, it was registered in the petitioner's name

Admittedly, all these documents were with the petitioner and the Motor Registration Authority's record reflected that the car belonged to him

Respondent claimed that he bought the car from "Mr. MA" through an open Transfer Deed, which inter alia implied an updated document

Transfer Deed and affidavit of "Mr. MA" when examined together showed that the alleged transaction took place on 09.08.2010

According to the available documentation, Mr. "MA" did not have the right to sell the car on that date because it was still in the bank's name

Transfer Deed was not in the form prescribed under R. 47(1) of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969

Further, an open transfer deed was not a valid title document and did not transfer vehicle's ownership under the Ordinance

In any case, if the transferee did not submit an application to the Motor Registration Authority for a change of ownership of a vehicle within 30 days following the transaction, it was null and void under S. 32 of the Ordinance

Petitioner was the registered owner of the car and, for Superdari, the balance tilted in his favour

Petition was accepted by setting aside the impugned order and Area Magistrate was directed to deliver the Car to the petitioner.

Registered owner of a vehicle is prima facie entitled to the temporary custody (superdari) of that vehicle unless the dispute as to the title to the vehicle is decided by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Applicant on the basis of registration book issued by the Excise and Taxation Department was the lawful owner of the subject vehicle which was detained at police station because of being used in transportation of mainpuries

Accused, who was allegedly driving the vehicle, was on bail but the subject vehicle was detained at police station in the open air

No other claimant of the subject vehicle had come forward either before Trial Court or High Court

Vehicle could not be detained unless it was proved that the owner of the vehicle was aware that his vehicle was being used in the crime

Revision application was allowed and the custody of vehicle was temporarily handed over to the applicant on superdari basis.

Appellant being attorney of original owner assailed order of trial court whereby his application for superdari of vehicle seized as case property was allowed to its real owner on furnishing solvent surety in the equal amount of the vehicle

Validity

In the case of accident, the owner of the vehicle did nothing to advance the commission of any offence, but it was his driver who was liable for the said offence, therefore, by detaining the vehicle, its owner was being penalized and deprived of exercising his legal right to use his own property

If the property was left in the custody of police, it would not serve any purpose and it would also reduce its utility which again tantamount to penalizing the owner unnecessarily

Section 95, Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 provided that after inspection of the vehicle, the same was to be returned to its owner without unnecessary delay and in no case later than forty eight (48) hours of its removal

If the vehicle was detained then again the owner would be put to great hardships as he could not get his vehicle repaired and to use the same subsequently

High Court observed that in the present case, driver of the vehicle had been granted bail by the Trial Court in the sum of Rs.200,000/- [rupees two lac only), whereas, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court for releasing the vehicle equivalent to the amount of bus is/was harsh, unjustified and against the spirit of Chap. XLIII of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, which needed to be modified accordingly

Original owner of the subject vehicle was present, who submitted that the vehicle might be released in his favour subject to furnishing only his P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.200,000/- [rupees two lac only)

Contention of the owner of the vehicle appeared to be reasonable

Consequently, the impugned order was modified to the extent that the vehicle be returned to its original owner on executing his P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.200,000/- [rupees two lac only] before the Trial Court, however, it was made clear that the property shall be produced by the owner before the Trial Court as and when required

Criminal revision application stood disposed of accordingly.

Vehicle in question had been seized by squad of Intelligence Bureau of Excise Taxation and Narcotics Control Department on the basis of suspicion of having bogus registration documents, and tampered chassis

Registration documents, after verification from the concerned Registration Authority, were also found to be bogus

Respondent claiming to be owner and last possessor applied the Court of Session for interim custody of the vehicle by filing an application under S.516-A, Cr.P.C., which was allowed through the impugned judgment

Validity

Any person aggrieved from the order passed by the confiscating authority under the provisions of sub-rule (3) of R. 9 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Road Checking, Seizing and Disposal of Motor Vehicles) Rules, 2015, may prefer an appeal to the concerned Deputy Director (Region) within fifteen days after passing of such order under R.10(1) of the Rules

Under sub-rule (2) of R.10 another appeal can be filed, against the order of Deputy Director, before the Director General within thirty days

In view of sub-rule (5) of R.10 the Secretary to Government may, on its own accord or on an appeal filed by any aggrieved person within sixty days against the order of the Director General pass such orders as it deemed fit in accordance with law

Said rules provided a concise and complete procedure thereafter the seizure of vehicle under those Rules and before confiscation of the same, which are still holding the field, and is prevailing law on the subject

Provisions contained in S.516-A, Cr.P.C., empoweres a criminal court to make order for disposal of property pending trial in certain cases

Record showed that the authorities had taken into custody and had seized the vehicle under consideration, on the basis of having not only the forged registration number but also tampered chassis frame

No criminal case had been registered by the authorities against the respondent and no criminal inquiry was under process or any trial was pending before any criminal court, while the vehicle in question was neither a case property nor used in commission of an offence

Vehicle so seized under consideration was the one, which was also the case property

All such disputed and factual controversy was to be dealt with by the competent authority, designated as such under the Motor Vehicles Rules, 2015 and, any other claimant/owner, if so advised, might take recourse to the concerned authorities

Petition was allowed by setting aside impugned judgment with direction that vehicle, if already handed over to respondent, would be re-taken into custody by the petitioners.

Respondent had produced legal documents of the vehicle, which were verified by the Trial Court from Excise and Taxation Department

Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 did not put an embargo on release of vehicle on superdari to the bona fide owner

Prosecution had to establish the knowledge of the owner of vehicle in respect of its usage for smuggling of contraband material

Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 did not prohibit the release of vehicle used in trafficking of narcotics, when the owner had no nexus with the commission of the crime or the accused and he was unaware that the vehicle was being used for the crime

Revision petition was dismissed.

Appellant assailed order of Trial Court whereby his application for superdari of vehicle seized as case property was dismissed

Narcotics were recovered from the toolbox of the vehicle which was driven by accused

Appellant was not accused in the case nor the prosecution had brought on record any incriminating material to show the knowledge of appellant in respect of the allegedly recovered narcotics

Narcotics were not recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle

Appellant, being in possession of valid documents showing his undisputed ownership, was entitled to the custody of the vehicle

Appeal was allowed.

Person, possessing a vehicle under superdari order, legally could not sell out the same because such possession was not a proof of title

Such person was always required to retain possession within the limitation(s), so detailed in the superdari order

Title documents, in the present case, were, admittedly, in favour of the Bank coupled with the decree passed by the Banking Court

Though, while deciding such like claims in criminal matters, the Courts were not required to adjudicate upon the title/ownership but entitlement must be examined

Since the title documents were in the favour of the Bank and even possession was with it though claimed to be in illegal manner which, however, could not be dilated upon by criminal court

Entitlement, prima facie, was in favour of the Bank so was rightly concluded by Appellate Court

Property lying with the Nazir would not serve any purpose of justice rather letting it (vehicle) under such custody would surely bring down the value of vehicle

High Court held that handing over the property to the Bank, however, would not prejudice the claims and entitlement of petitioner pending adjudication before civil court

Application was dismissed accordingly.

Challan against the accused had been submitted in Court and vehicle in question had not been shown as case property in column 4 of challan, therefore, the said vehicle was not required by the prosecution

Vehicle in question could not be detained in Police Station for an indefinite period as it would decay and deteriorate the colour and parts of vehicle

Prosecution was directed to hand over the vehicle in question to the petitioner on Superdari

Petitioner was directed to produce the vehicle in question in the Trial Court as and when required.

Admittedly, the petitioner was owner and last possessor of the vehicle in question as evident from certificate of indexation issued by Excise and Taxation Department

No rival claimant had claimed ownership of the vehicle in question,

No useful purpose would be served to detain the vehicle in question in Police Station for an indefinite period, rather it would decay and deteriorate the colour and parts of vehicle

Investigation in the case had been completed

Revision petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioners were neither involved in the criminal cases nor had they knowledge regarding transportation of charas in their vehicles by their drivers/accused persons

Section 74, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, did not place any embargo on release of confiscated vehicle to the bona fide owner who was neither accused in the case nor was associate of the accused

Words 'private individual' used in S. 74, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 did not include the owner of the vehicle

Detention of vehicles in police station for indefinite period would serve no useful purpose

Vehicles were ordered to be released to the petitioners.

Petitioner was bona fide owner of the vehicle in question as evinced by registration documents issued by Gilgit-Baltistan Registration & Transport Authority

No rival claimant had claimed ownership of the said vehicle

Petitioner had properly maintained documents of the vehicle

Retention of vehicle by the customs authorities for an indefinite period would mean nothing except complete decay, damage and deterioration of the vehicle in question

Petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioner/complainant had lodged FIR under S. 381-A, P.P.C. with the assertion that he parked his car in the street but same was stolen by unknown accused persons

Vehicle in question had been taken into possession by police under Ss. 523 & 550, Cr.P.C. and case was disposed of under A-Class

Application of the petitioner for superdari of the car was dismissed on the ground that he failed to produce any valid documents regarding its ownership

Owner of the vehicle on record preferred an application in terms of S. 523, Cr.P.C., which was allowed by the Trial Court

Record showed that subject vehicle was registered in the name of the said owner

Petitioner had failed to bring on record any material to substantiate that he was in possession of the vehicle and stated that he had purchased the vehicle in question in the name of recorded owner, who was his ex-wife

Vehicle in question was stated to have been given to the ex-wife, after dissolution of marriage, to facilitate his three children

Claim of petitioner appeared to be self-contradictory for the reasons that children of the petitioner were residing with his ex-wife, thus the vehicle should have lastly been in her possession

Circumstances established that petitioner was not lastly in possession of the vehicle

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Applicant being the sole owner of car had a right of supardari for said car especially when after passage of 5-6 months there had been no progress in the case

Retention of car for an indefinite period would only deteriorate or damage the car

Absolute bar for temporarily returning the vehicle on supardari during the pendency of trial could not be justified

Prima facie it was established that applicant had no knowledge about existence of narcotic substances in his car

Court which can grant a final relief can also grant an interim relief

Since there was no material evidence which showed that the applicant knew about the narcotic substance, therefore, applicant was entitled for the supardari of his car on presenting of a surety bond and with an undertaking that the vehicle shall be produced in court as and when ordered

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

None of the claimants i.e. neither the petitioner nor respondent retained titled documents of vehicle in question in their favour

Respondent though possessed different registration books yet his claim of ownership was based on open transfer letter

Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court declined to hand over interim custody (Superdari) of vehicle to both the claimants i.e. petitioner and respondent

Validity

Open transfer letter in favour of respondent could not be termed as a title document in his favour

As vehicle in question was subject of two separate FIRs there was no justification with police to release the same pursuant to order in one FIR whereas in other FIR its custody was refused by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court

High Court maintained the orders passed by both the Courts below as the same were well-reasoned and did not contain any illegality or gross irregularity

Petition was disposed of in circumstances.

Vehicle being non-customs paid had been registered in the name of the claimant and no other person had come forward to claim ownership or possession of vehicle in question

Nothing was on the file to indicate that the vehicle was used in the commission of the crime with the knowledge of the claimant

No doubt S.74 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 prohibited the grant of custody of the vehicle used in the export, import or transportation of narcotic substance to accused, or any of his associates, or relatives, or any private individual, till the conclusion of the same, but the application of that provision of law, could not be extended to cover an owner, who had no hand or involvement in the crime, as it could not be construed independently of the provisions contained in S.32 of said Act which protected the right of the owner, who had no conscious hand in the commission of the crime

Retention of vehicle in Police custody for an indefinite period, would serve no useful purpose

Judicial discretion could also be exercised for release of the vehicle on 'Superdari' in view of the principle that if a court could grant final relief, it also possessed inherent jurisdiction to grant temporary relief pending proceedings before it, subject to fulfilling condition by the claimant under the law for getting relief finally from the court

Custody of vehicle in question along with its documents, was ordered to be handed over to the claimant on furnishing bond/security, in circumstances.

Disputed vehicle did not have its original chassis number and even the engine number was different from the one mentioned in the duplicate registration book produced by the petitioner

Vehicle without specific identification could not be allowed to ply on the roads as the same could not be stamped to be of a particular owner

Such vehicles were a serious security threat, which could be used in criminal activities including smuggling of narcotics and bomb blasts

High Court observed that allowing such vehicles to be given on superdari on the basis of duplicate registration books of stolen or destroyed vehicles should be discouraged

Petitioner was rightly refused superdari of vehicle by courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Last possessor could not claim superdari of the property as of right.

Magistrate handed over truck on superdari to the petitioner, however, First Appellate Court set aside order of Magistrate and ordered that till final disposal of the case, truck should remain with the police and parties could file civil suits to prove their ownership of the truck

Validity

Report of Forensic Science Laboratory showed that truck in question did not bear the chassis numbers alleged by both the parties

During investigation respondent failed to produce the alleged owner of the truck who had given an open transfer letter to the respondent

Respondent had simply brought on record an open transfer letter, which was not a valid document of title and did not bear any legal worth to claim ownership

Both parties claimed ownership of the truck, therefore, First Appellate Court had rightly directed them to approach the civil court for determination of their ownership

Criminal courts were not competent to determine question of title or ownership of the case property rather same fell within the exclusive domain of the civil court

Disputed ownership of vehicle was a factual controversy which could not be resolved by invoking constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Vehicle in question was taken into custody by police as its driver could not produce any valid documents and an F.I.R. was registered against the driver

Petitioner, who claimed to be bona fide purchaser of vehicle filed an application before Judicial Magistrate for return of vehicle, but same was dismissed

Revision petition against order of Judicial Magistrate was also dismissed by Revisional Court

Validity

Record of Excise and Taxation Department showed that original owner of vehicle had sold the vehicle to another person, from whom the present petitioner had purchased the same through a transfer deed

Forensic report as to whether property mark of the vehicle was genuine or tampered was not available on file

In the absence of any rival claimant of vehicle, if the same was given to the petitioner on superdari, who would produce it before Trial Court on each and every date, the State would suffer no harm

High Court directed that vehicle in question should be handed over to petitioner on superdari on furnishing surety; that petitioner should undertake that he would not sell or transfer the vehicle to anyone till the decision of the case, and that petitioner would produce the vehicle as and when required by court, failing which the surety bond would be forfeited.

Bus in question had been taken into possession by the police after charas was recovered from it, which was found in a box underneath the driver's seat; Bus was being driven by an employee of the appellant

Appellant moved application before Trial Court for superdari of bus , but same was dismissed

Appellant contended that he had purchased the bus on lease from a bank on finance facility; that he had paid 55 lease instalments out of a total of 60; that the bus was being used for public transport and not for carriage of narcotics as recovery had not been made from any secret cavity but from a box underneath the driver's seat; that driver of bus was exclusively responsible for the illegal act; that he (owner) was neither present in the bus nor could be tagged with the alleged recovery, and that bus was parked in the police station, where it was deteriorating day by day

Validity

Appellant had paid major portion of the instalments to the Bank

Record did not show that vehicle was used in commission of the crime with the knowledge of the appellant

Although section 74 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, prohibited grant of custody of vehicle used in export, import or transportation of narcotic substance to the accused or any of his associates or relatives or any private individual, till the conclusion of the case but said section could not be extended to cover an owner of vehicle who had no hand or involvement in the crime, as S.32 of the same Act, protected the rights of an owner who had no conscious hand in the commission of the crime

Retention of vehicle in police custody for an indefinite period would serve no useful purpose

Perusal of documents on record showed that appellant was owner of vehicle at least in the absence of any rival claimant

Appeal was allowed, order of Trial Court was set-aside and bus was handed over to the appellant with a direction to ensure production of bus as and when required by the Trial Court.

Said vehicle was neither shown to be the case property nor the same was shown by the prosecution to have any nexus with the story mentioned in the F.I.R.

Trial Court had allowed the Superdari of the vehicle to the father of the accused petitioner, who had been convicted and sentenced in the case

Father of accused being a British National had left the country

To leave the vehicle continuously with the ANF Officials might cause irreparable loss to the accused

All the legal formalities for release of the vehicle stood completed

Special Prosecutor ANF had no objection for delivery of the vehicle to the agent of the accused

Accused was directed to move an application before Trial Court seeking compliance of the earlier order of Superdari of the vehicle, who would summon the accused petitioner from the prison, record his statement and on his consent deliver the vehicle on superdari to his counsel

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Plea of applicant was that he was bona fide purchaser of the vehicle by virtue of a sale deed coupled with possession of original registration book and transfer certificate, and that vehicle could not be transferred in his name till its physical examination before the motor vehicle authority, therefore vehicle should be restored to him to get it transferred in his name

Validity

Vehicle in question was present in the premises of the police station

Neither the vehicle was involved in any other crime nor any other claimant appeared for its restoration

Trial Court passed an order for detention of the vehicle for an indefinite period, which was an abuse of the process of law

According to the F.I.R. vehicle was involved during the commission of the offence, but the vehicle itself did not commit any offence, therefore, it could not be detained for an indefinite period

Even though the case was under dormant file due to abscondment of accused persons, but the law did not permit to detain any vehicle for an indefinite period

Order for detention of vehicle was set aside and Trial Court was directed to release/hand over the vehicle to the applicant on superdari basis so that he could get it transferred in his name

Revision application was disposed of accordingly.