' The brief facts out of which present petition arises are that the petitioner purchased the vehicle in- question amounting to Rs,5,27,000 after verification of record of registration authority. The petitioner got a case registered with regard to the vehicle in-question vide r.!.R. No,291 of 2004, under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. On 20-6-2004 at Police Station, Civil Line, Faisalabad. The petitioner submitted an application for securing the vehicle in-question on Superdari in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, Faisalabad, who dismissed the same vide order dated 6-8-2004. The petitioner being aggrieved filed criminal revision in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, who also dismissed the same vide order dated 4-10-2004. The petitioner being aggrieved filed Constitutional petition No,17143 of 2004, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 1,8-10-2004. In view of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Badar Din's case NLR 1993 Civil Cases 593, the petitioner has filed present petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
2. Malik Muhammad Nadeem, Advocate appeared on behalf of respondent No,3 on 13-12-2004 before this Court and stated that respondent No,3 purchased the vehicle in-question from respondent No,4 when he came to know that the documents of the vehicle in-question are fake, then he returned the vehicle in-question to respondent No,4, therefore, he is not interested to pursue the matter and he has no concern with this case in any capacity, therefore, his name is deleted as is depicted from order dated 13-12-2004.
3. According to the report of process server, the whereabouts of respondent No,4 are not known to him. In this view of the matter, Sultan Sikandar, S.-I./Investigating Officer, Police Station, A-Division, Faisalabad was directed to get the service of respondent No,4 affected. The aforesaid S.I/Investigating Officer, has submitted his report, which is placed on record. According to which respondent No,4 is involved in two criminal cases i.e, F.I.R.No,291 of 2004, dated 20-6-2004, offence under sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C., Police Station, Civil Line and F.I.R. No,859 of 2004, dated 8-5- 2004, offence under sections 420, 468, 471, 401, P.P.C., Police Station, Jaranwala. The Investigating Officer further submits that he tried his level best to trace respondent No,4, but he could not trace him in the said area.
4. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that vehicle in-question was taken into possession by the police authority from the petitioner, therefore, under the law, the petitioner is entitled to take possession of the vehicle in-question on Superdari. He further submits that the petitioner has lodged F.I.R. Qua the vehicle in-question after knowing that the documents of vehicle in:question are not genuine.
5. The learned Law Officer submits that according to the contents of F.I.R. And this petition, the petitioner has admitted that the documents of the vehicle in-question are not genuine, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to take possession of the vehicle in-question.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
7. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the basic facts in chronological order to resolve' the controversy between the parties:--
(1) Nobody has come forward till date to claim/own the ownership of vehicle in-question having in- possession of the documents relating to the vehicle in- question.
(2) F.I.R. Was lodged by the petitioner. Himself.
(3) The petitioner lodged F.I.R. That he has purchased the vehicle in question for consideration of Rs,5,27,000 from respondent No,4, whose whereabouts are not known to Investigating Officer./ S.-I.
Concerned of the area, as is stated by him before this Court and also submitted his report to this extent.
(4) According to his report, respondent No,4 is involved in two criminal cases.
(5) Respondent No,3 has taken stand that he has purchased the vehicle in question from respondent No,4, when he came to know that the documents of vehicle in-question are not genuine, then he returned the said vehicle to respondent No,4.
(6) The vehicle in-question was taken by the police authority from the possession of the petitioner.
' In case, the aforesaid facts are put in juxta-position, then orders of Courts below are not in accordance with law laid down by the Superior Courts and also not in terms of mandatory provisions of section 516-A, Cr.P.C.
8. It is settled principle of law that in case, there are no rival claimants of Superdari of vehicle in- question then vehicle should ordinarily be given on Superdari to the person, from whom it was taken possession by the police authority, as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Malik Muhammad Rafique's case" 1986 SCMR 1539. The reference can also be made in "Hamayun Akhtar's case" 1999 M LD 1676. It is pertinent to mention here that the delivery of vehicle on Superdari is meant primarily for the purpose of protection of property and to avoid further deterioration. It cannot be used as proof of ownership, as per law laid down by the Federal Shariat Court in: "Haji Muhammad Ismail's case" 1992 PCr.LJ 988. The aforesaid preposition of law is also supported by law laid down by the Federal Shariat Court in "Abdul Bari's case" PLJ 1991 Federal Shariat Court 330.
It is pertinent to mention here that in any case leaving the vehicle in-question in custody of the police, then it will not serve any purpose except reducing its utility, as per law laid down by the Sindh High Court in "Haji Rab Nawaz's case" 1988 PCr.LJ 1353.
9. In this view of the matter, the respondents are directed to hand over the vehicle in-question to the petitioner after furnishing his personal surety to the satisfaction of respondent No,1 (concerned Illaqa Judicial Magistrate). The petitioner shall not sell the vehicle in-question to any third party till the decision of this case and shall produce the same as and when it requires before the competent Court/forum. In case, any person who is in possession of genuine documents of the vehicle in-question, then he is entitled to file an application for review of this order.