Superdari

2025 SCMR 1041 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 516-ASuperdariInterim custody of vehicleEffect

Permitting interim custody of vehicle on Superdari neither amounts to prejudice the trial nor gives a clean chit to accused, nor does it relieve or exempt owner / recipient of custody from pending legal proceedings

Duration of interim custody may continue subject to the bond and surety till the final fate of the case

Till then the person allowed interim custody is duty-bound under law to attend, participate and produce the vehicle as and when directed by Court.

2025 SCMR 1041 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 12, 13 & 17Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.516-AFreezing of vehicleSuperdariInterim custody, grant ofNon-filing of objectionsCriminal Procedure Code, 1898Applicability

Petitioner / accused was aggrieved of refusal to grant interim custody of vehicle in question which was frozen under section 12 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 by Accountability Court

High Court declined to give interim custody of the vehicle as the accused had not filed any objection against freezing order

Validity

Accused never endeavored to challenge freezing order, rather he accepted it without demur but he applied for custody of vehicle within the sphere of freezing order (which was confined to an embargo against transfer of vehicle only)

There was no demonstrable restriction or prohibition in law that if an accused or aggrieved person had failed to lodge a claim or objection against freezing order in terms of Section 13 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, they would be deprived and perpetually or unremittingly not be able to apply for interim custody of vehicle / property

There is no inconsistency or incongruity between section 516-A, Cr.P.C. and provision of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

There is no specific provision for releasing custody of vehicle embedded in National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and there are also no absolute restrictions against doing so

Aid and assistance may be taken by Courts from general provisions of Cr.P.C., particularly when the letter of law indubitably makes it clear that provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 apply mutatis mutandis to proceedings unless there is anything inconsistent with the provisions of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Supreme Court set aside order passed by High Court and allowed interim custody of vehicle in question on Superdari, in terms of Section 516-A, Cr.P.C.

Appeal was allowed.

2021 YLR 2164 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

S. 516-ASuperdariScope

Petitioner assailed the dismissal of his application filed under S.516-A, Cr.P.C. for superdari of Laptop, Passport, Prize bonds and Cheque Books, etc.

Petitioner and his co-accused were booked for offences under Ss.120-B, 123-A, 124-A & 153-B, P.P.C. and Ss.6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and the police, during investigation, had taken said articles into custody

Petitioner was bona fide owner and last possessor of the said articles and no other claimant had come forward to claim ownership

Articles were not required by the Trial Court

Retention of articles in police custody for indefinite period would not serve any useful purpose

Revision petition was accepted, order passed by Trial Court was set aside and the police was directed to give articles to the petitioner on superdari subject to his furnishing undertaking/affidavit to the extent that if the Trial Court forfeit the articles at the end of trial, he would return the amount of prize bonds and laptop to the Trial Court.

2016 YLR 1326 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 32, 33, 74 & 48Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.517Articles connected with narcoticsSuperdariConfiscation of vehicle used for trafficking narcoticsScope

Material collected by Investigating Officer did not show slightest kind of suspicion brought on record that accused was in knowledge that vehicle was used for commission of alleged offence and documents annexed with the petition showed that accused was owner of said vehicle and there was no rival claimant of vehicle in question

Vehicle in question was to be returned to applicant on 'superdari'

Appeal was allowed, accordingly.

2016 MLD 1642 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 516-ASuperdariOriginal case propertyScopeBoth the applicants "H" and "L" were claiming the ownership of five buffaloes in the custody of police as case property

Applicant "H" resided in the jurisdiction of another police station which was across the river, while applicant "L" resided within the jurisdiction of police station from where the case property was recovered

Applicant "H" had neither lodged any FIR, nor any complaint at any forum except a constitutional petition against police officials, which was pending

Applicant "H" along with his other relatives were previously involved in eight different FIRs

Case property was handed over to applicant "L" on furnishing of surety

Revision was disposed of accordingly.

2014 SCMR 1536 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 516-ASuperdariOriginal case propertyScope

Applicant was accused of stealing a buffalo belonging to defendant/respondent, and had allegedly sold the same to purchase another buffalo (disputed buffalo)

Initially Judicial Magistrate granted superdari of disputed buffalo to the defendant/respondent

Subsequently Judicial Magistrate on the orders of Revisional Court inquired into the matter summarily and granted superdari of disputed buffalo to the applicant

Revisional Court upheld order of grant of superdari in favour of applicant

High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, however, restored the initial order passed by Judicial Magistrate, whereby superdari of the buffalo was granted to the defendant/respondent

Legality

Affidavits placed on record in support of applicant's claim were duly supported by the circumstances of the case

Judicial Magistrate granted superdari of disputed buffalo to the applicant, which findings of fact were upheld by the Revisional Court finding no illegality in the order of Judicial Magistrate

High Court illegally restored initial order of Judicial Magistrate, which had been set aside by the Revisional Court

High Court had set aside findings of fact recorded by both the courts below and granted superdari to defendant/ respondent without pin pointing any legal infirmity therein

High Court merely on statement of investigating officer that superdari of disputed buffalo was already with defendant/respondent for the last about one year, granted superdari to the defendant/respondent

Order of High Court was set aside in circumstances

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2014 PCrLJ 1716 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 516-AConstitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionSuperdariCase propertyScopeProperty not subject matter of offenceAccused admitted to charges of theft of cash and gold ornaments

Accused entered into a "salsi (arbitration) agreement" with the complainant and committed to give buffaloes to the complainant as compensation in lieu of case property

Accused allegedly refused to honour his commitment, whereafter police took possession of buffaloes belonging to accused

Complainant was given possession of said buffaloes on superdari

Legality

Police took possession of buffaloes during investigation of the case, and same could not be termed as case property as the same were not stolen and complainant never claimed to have owned the same

Said buffaloes were taken into possession despite not being required in any case, therefore, they had to be returned to the accused from whom they were taken

Accused was entitled to superdari of buffaloes subject to security fixed by the Magistrate concerned

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2013 YLR 1037 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 514 & 516-ASuperdariFor-feiture of surety bond

Record had revealed that the person voluntarily appeared before the Trial Court and stood surety of car, executed surety bond before the Trial Court and bound himself to produce the said car on each and every date of hearing, when and where required and in failure he would pay the surety amount

Neither the car in question was produced by the surety before the Trial Court nor paid surety amount as per bond executed by him

Trial Court repeatedly issued directions to the surety, but he did not produce the said car

When the order was passed by the Trial Court, car in question was handed over to the owner in presence of the surety, and from the very date of release of car, it was not produced before the Trial Court

Accused persons, who were on bail, also absconded from the Trial Court

Many opportunities were given to the surety by the Trial Court to submit the reply, but he failed to do so

Impugned orders passed by courts below, needed no interference, and the directions issued by the Trial Court were upheld

Application filed by surety calling in question impugned orders, was dismissed, in circumstances.

2009 PCrLJ 1349 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 550Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199Constitutional petitionSuperdariSubmission of the surety bond equal to the price of seized gold

Gold belonging to the petitioner was taken into possession under S.550, Cr.P.C. for which the petitioner being the genuine and bona fide owner of the gold, applied for Superdari

Same was allowed subject to the submission of the surety bond equivalent to the price of the gold

Petitioner had challenged order to the extent of condition of submission of surety bond equivalent to the price of the gold

No criminal case stood registered nor there was any rival claimant of. the gold

Petitioner was the genuine and bona fide owner of the gold

Condition of the submission of surety bond was not justified in circumstances

Taking the gold into custody appeared to be highhandedness on the part of the police and a sheer abuse of authority

Impugned orders of the Courts below were set aside to the extent of submission of the surety bond equivalent to the price of the gold

Gold taken into custody by the police under S.550, Cr.P.C. was ordered to be handed over to the petitioner.

2003 YLR 3276 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 550 & 561-ASuperdariQuashing f order

S. H. O. of Police Station concerned took into custody tractor/trolley under S.550, Cr. P. C. on which two lathe machines were loaded

S.H.O. had suspected that said lathe machines were a stolen property

Both petitioner and respondent filed applications or Superdari of lathe machines

Both applications were dismissed by Magistrate against which only respondent filed revision which was accepted and said property was given in Superdari to him

Person from whom alleged property was taken into possession by Police under S.550, Cr.P.C. had stated not only before Police, but also Before the Magistrate that he had sold the said property to respondent

Petitioner had failed to show any document to prove the possession or ownership of said property nor to could produce better claim in respect of said property than the respondent

Petitioner also had not filed any revision or civil suit for custody of said property and had not initiated any criminal proceedings against the person who stated that said property was sold by him to respondent

Revisional Court, in circumstances, had rightly given Superdari of he property to respondent

Order passed by revisional Court being based on reasonable grounds, could not be interfered with or quashed.