' This is a petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Filed against the impugned order dated 16-10-2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha whereby Superdari of Vehicle subject- matter of this petition, bearing Registration No,KE-8370, was handed over to respondent Muhammad Shafique and whereby the consolidated order dated 2-6-2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sargodha, was not interfered.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is bona fide purchaser of the vehicle bearing Registration No,KE-8370; that the Registration Book of the vehicle in question is in his name; that the respondent moved the concerned Department through applications but the same were dismissed; that even the Excise Department summoned both the parties, were heard and plea of the respondent was turned down; that actually the vehicle in question was got transferred from the name of Javed (original owner) in the name of Manzoor who consequently transferred it in petitioner's name in lieu of the amount settled between both of them; that the petitioner has no concern with the case registered by the respondent against one Ghulam Haider on account of dishonouring of cheques under section 489-F, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No,155 dated 26-3- 2004 at Police Station, Satellite Town, Sargodha; that if the respondent had some business disputes with the said Ghulam Haider then the petitioner should not be penalized for the same; that the said vehicle was recovered from petitioner's possession and that the petitioner was entitled to the Superdari of the vehicle but has been handed over by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the respondent which is not tenable in law.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Muhammad Shafiq submits that the respondent purchased the vehicle in question from the real owner Javed; that thereafter respondent handed over the vehicle to one Ghulam Haider of Al-Waqar Motors, in lieu of rupees four lac, with the condition that when the said Ghulam Haider shall pay the amount to the respondent, the respondent shall hand over the original open transfer letter to him; that the said Ghulam Haider gave two cheques (Rs,two lac each) to the respondent which were, later on, dishonoured which made subject-matter of case F.I.R. No,155 dated 26-3-2004 under section 489- F, P.P.C., Police Station, Satellite Town, Sargodha; that since the respondent was not paid the settled payment of rupees four lac, he did not hand over the original transfer letter (which is still in the name of Javed) to the said Ghulam Hiader; that Ghulam Haider, after having joined hand with one Manzoor and petitioner Imran, got prepared a forged Transfer Letter (from Javed to Manzoor) and ultimately, on the basis of the said forged transfer letter, got the vehicle in question transferred in the name of the present petitioner; that the respondent moved the department for cancellation of the transfer of the vehicle from the name of the petitioner coupled with taking a legal action against the delinquents in the Excise Department as well but of no avail; that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, has validly, handed over the Superdari of the vehicle in question to the respondent Shafique and that this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is liable to be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned judgment and report submitted by the Director General, Excise and Taxation, Punjab, Lahore.
5. The moot point involved in this petition is two fold i.e, whether the vehicle in question was validly sold by Javed to Manzoor who in turn sold it to the present petitioner Imran and whether the Superdari of the vehicle in question was rightly given to respondent Shafique or not?
6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondent has placed before me the Original Open Transfer Letter written on a Stamp Paper issued on 12-12-2002 by Nasir Hussain, Government Stamp Vendor, District, Sargodha. The said letter bears the original signatures and thumb-impression of Javed Iqbal including mentioning of his National Identity Card Number (232- 89-454598).
7. An attested copy of Transfer Deed dated 26-7-2003 allegedly issued by Javed Iqbal in the name of Manzoor Ahmad, as claimed by the petitioner Imran, who claims to have purchased the same from the said Manzoor, is also on the record. A careful perusal of this Transfer Deed would show that, on its reverse side, neither it bears the name of the Stamp Vendor nor it contains the signature/thumb-impression of Javed and moreso it does not even show that for what purpose it was purchased. This Transfer Deed is even without Identity Card Number of the original owner Javed.
8. It is shocking for this Court that the whole case hinges on the Transfer Deed on which basis the vehicle had come into the hands of petitioner Imran. I have perused the Inquiry File conducted under the orders of this Court regarding the transfer of the vehicle in question, produced by Mr. M.U.
Shah, Inspector (Legal), Excise and Taxation Department, Lahore. At page 43 of the file, there is a copy of Open Transfer Letter of Javed Iqbal whereas at page 44 attested copy of the alleged Transfer Deed dated 26-7-2003 is present, at page 38 there is a statement of the said Javed Iqbal made during the course of inquiry before the Authorities of the Excise Department which is dated 27-1-2005 wherein he has categorically denied to have sold the vehicle in question to Manzoor and has stated that he had sold the same to Shafique only.
9. On the other hand there is a report of the Director General Excise and Taxation Department, Lahore dated 3rd February, 2005 submitted in compliance to the orders of this Court. I have minutely gone through the same. It only talks about the Excise Record. The purpose to have the inquiry conducted by the Director General of the said Department was to do justice and not to act as a rubber stamp. It appears that he did not even bother to have a look at the material brought on record from both the sides otherwise the Inquiry Report would have been different. If he had taken interest to thrash out the truth then his first and foremost duty was to summon both the parties before him especially the original owner Javed, to get his original signatures before him and to have the signatures/thumb impressions compared by an Expert to avoid from sufferance of the parties of the wrongs done by his subordinates.
10. In view of the above, this Court is left with no option but to form its own independent opinion regarding genuineness of the documents placed before on record.
11. I have minutely gone through both the Transfer Deeds placed before me. One Transfer Deed is dated 26-7-2003 which is produced by the petitioner side. It is a document whereby one Javed (the original owner) sold and transferred the vehicle in question to Manzoor which then came into the hands of the petitioner. I note, neither it bears the name of the Stamp Vendor nor it contains the signature/thumb-impression of Javed on its reverse side and more so it does not even show that for what purpose it was purchased. This Transfer Deed is even without Identity Card Number of the original owner Javed. There is no similarity of the admitted signatures or, thumb impressions of the said Javed with the signatures or thumb impressions on the Transfer Deed on the basis of which Manzoor got the vehicle in-question transferred in his name and then in the name of Imran petitioner. Not only this document appears to be bogus and fake one but the said Javed, while appearing before the Excise Authorities during trial, made a statement that he never sold the vehicle to Manzoor.
12. While, on the other hand, copy of the Open Transfer Deed in the name of Javed (admittedly the real owner) is also dpresent on the record of the Inquiry File. Even the Original Transfer Deed has been placed before me which is still open. It bears date of issuance as 12-12-2002, it shows its purchaser's name and the name of ( the person in favour of whom it was purchased. It was purchased by Javed Iqbal in favour of Muhammad Shafique respondent. It appears to be genuine document.
13. Even otherwise, the learned Magistrate Ist Class, Sargodha dated 2-6-2004, at page 3 of the said order, observed as under:-- "....Moreover, during the course of investigation, it has been found that the open transfer letter due to which the petitioner Imran got registered the vehicle to his name, found to be fictitious and forged."
14. Moreso, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while deciding the revision petition filed against the above order of the learned Magistrate, observed, at page 4 of the impugned order dated 16-10- 2004, as under:-- "....Transfer in favour of Manzoor is made in absence of Javed Iqbal whereas no receipt executed in favour of Manzoor is produced in the Court. Javed Iqbal also appeared before this Court and Sided with the petitioner Muhammad Shafique. Ghulam Haider the owner of Al-Waqar Show Room has been found guilty by the police. It is revealed from the record that registration authorities did not show the concerned record to the police during the investigation of the case. The cheques issued by Ghulam Haider in favour of Muhammad Shafique also indicate that at the said time the ownership of the vehicle vested in Muhammad Shafique petitioner. Since Ghulam Haider was never sold the vehicle hence he was not competent to transfer it further. Hence no title with regard to the vehicle has been created in favour of Manzoor and Imran. Registration in the name of Manzoor or Imran is not proof of their ownership specially when the allegation is levelled against the registration authorities to the effect that those are also party to the fraud committed by Ghulam Haider. It is also noteworthy that transfer in favour of Manzoor and Imran took place in very short time. This fact also indicates some foul play on the part of Imran etc. Vehicle in dispute is a case property of above-mentioned case which is registered on the statement of Muhammad Shafiq.
Suit file by Imran has been withdrawn by him as stated at bar by his counsel. Matter of Superdari cannot be deferred till the decision about that title of the vehicle by Civil Court because this could not be done in a short period and with the passage of time vehicle in possession of the police would become useless. Vehicle in dispute was parked at the show room of Ghulam Haider by Muhammad Shafique who had not been given its price. Further more, fraud vitiates all the solemn transactions. Hence revision petition of Muhammad Shafique petitioner is accepted and revision petition of Muhammad Imran petitioner is hereby dismissed by setting aside order of the learned trial Court. It is ordered that Hilux in dispute be given on Superdari to Muhammad Shafique petitioner subject to his furnishing surety bond of Rs,5,00,000 to the satisfaction of this Court "
15. Keeping in view the above resume of facts brought on record coupled with the mandate of Article 84 of the Qanun-eShahadat Order, 1984, this Court, after having made comparison of both the documents, is of the considered view that the vehicle in question was got transferred in the name of petitioner Imran on the basis of forged documents. It is imperative to reproduce the said Article which reads as under:-- "84. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved.---(1) In order to ascertain whether a signatures, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made any signatures, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose."
16. In this regard, this Court is fortified with a view of he August Supreme Court of Pakistan in Rehmat Ali Ismailia v. Khalid Mehmood 2004 SCM R 361, wherein, at page 366 of the judgment, it was observed as under:-- "The above provision do empower the Courts to make the comparison of the words or figures so written over a disputed document to that of admitted writing/signature and the Court could exercise its judgments on resemblance of admitted writing on record. It is true that it is undesirable that Presiding Officer of the Court should take upon himself the task of comparing signature in order to fmd out whether the signature/writing resembled to the disputed document with that of admitted signature/ writing but the said provision do empower the Court to compare the disputed signature/writing with the admitted or proved writing. Reference may be made to Ghulam Rasool and others v. Sardarul Hassan and another 1997 SCM R 976; Mst. Ummatul Waheed and others v.
Mst. Nasira Kausar and others 1985 SCM R 214 and Messrs Waqas Enterprises and others v. Allied Bank of Pakistan and others 1999 SCM R 85
17. In view of the above resume of facts, the case-law and the exercise done by this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the vehicle in question has been rightly given to respondent Muhammad Shafique. There is no misreading or non-reading or jurisdictional defect with the impugned order of Superdari passed by the E learned Additional Sessions Judge in favour of respondent Muhammad Shafique. This petition, filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Invoking inherit powers of this Court calling in question the above order, has no merit which is hereby dismissed because it does not call for interference.
18. Before parting with this judgment, I must observe that if utmost care and caution was adopted by the concerned officials of the Excise and Taxation Department at the time of acceptance of documents regarding transfer of the vehicle in-question in the name of Manzoor and then Imran must have been avoided from the wastage of precious time by way of indulging into litigation by the respective parties. The conduct of the officials of the Excise Department is reflective of ulterior motives and extraneous considerations on their part. The documents show that the said officials did not even bother even to have a look at the original owner. I am not satisfied with the report submitted by the Director General. It appears that at the time of transferring the said vehicle from the name of Javed to Manzoor and then Imran, the concerned officials did not scrutinize the documents as was required by the mandate of their office. I would also like to observe that while conducting inquiry under the orders of this Court, the Director General Excise and Taxation, Lahore has also not judiciously looked into the matter and apparently has signed the report as it was presented before him. If he had scrutinized the case, then he must have summoned the parties before him to verify the authenticity of the documents in question and to unearth the truth.
Unfortunately, he has not done the job as required by the mandate of his office. It is a flattering commentary on the working of the Excise and Taxation Department. Notwithstanding the fact that the matter was being adjudicated upon by this Court, he did not give due care and attention to the matter. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Secretary, Excise and Taxation Department, Lahore, to fix the responsibility for the wrongs done in his department and award exemplary punishments to make them a lesson for the others, under intimation to the Additional Registrar (Judicial) for information of this Court.