' M. BILAL KHAN, J.---Amant Ali son of Haji Muhammad Shafi, the petitioner, by filing this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has called in question the order dated 15-1-2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, whereby he dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 5-1-2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Lahore dismissing his application for obtaining the vehicle Toyota Hiace Wagon bearing Registration No,MNV-6918 on Superdari.
2. Succinctly the facts giving rise to this constitutional petition were that the petitioner had purchased the aforementioned vehicle from one Mir Ali Khan son of Mir Gul Khan for a consideration of Rs,4,27,000 and an agreement on stamp paper in this regard had been duly executed in his favour; the said vehicle was impounded and its driver, namely, Sarfraz Ahmad son of Muhammad Din was apprehended by one Basharat Ali, A.S.-I. Of Police Station Lytton Road, Lahore, and the vehicle was seized under section 550, Cr.P.C.; it was got examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory and as per its report, no other chassis number could be deciphered underneath, however, the chassis panel was found refitted and re-punched; the Registration Book had also been got verified from Motor Registration Authority Multan and vide its report dated 10-6- 2004, it was found to be that of a motorcycle; whereupon a case vide F.I.R. No,395, dated 27-7-2004 stood registered at Police Station Lytton Road, Lahore for offences under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. At the instance of said Basharat Ali, A.S.-I.; thereafter the petitioner moved an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Lahore seeking release of his vehicle on Superdari, who proceeded to dismiss the same ' ide order dated 5-1-2005 and the revision petition filed by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore also met the same fate. Hence, the instant constitutional petition.
3. Release of the aforesaid vehicle on Superdari is being sought by the petitioner on the grounds that he is a bona fide purchaser and owner of the vehicle and seizure thereof under section 550, Cr.P.C. Was illegal; that neither is there any rival claimant of the vehicle in question nor is the same involved in any criminal case. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Mahboob Khan v. The State (2003 YLR 791).
4. The learned Law Officer appearing on behalf of the State, however, did not oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that admittedly there is nothing on the record to show that the vehicle in question is stolen property or involved in any criminal case except report of the Forensic Science Laboratory that no other chassis number could be deciphered underneath, however, the chassis panel was found refitted and re-punched.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Law Officer and going through the documents appended with this petition, it has straightaway been observed that the vehicle in question is neither stolen property nor is the same involved in any criminal case. The documents thereof are properly maintained by the petitioner. The only question as to the chassis panel, which is alleged to have been refitted and re-punched, is a matter of evidence and can be seen at the time of trial. It has further been observed that retention of the vehicle in question in police possession for an indefinite period without there being any progress in the case would mean nothing but complete decay, deterioration and damage thereto which too cannot be allowed under any provision of law. The documents appended with this petition would prima facie show the petitioner to be the owner of the vehicle in question at least in the absence of any rival claimant.
6. For the foregoing reasons, I accept this petition and direct that the vehicle in question be handed over to the petitioner on Superdari subject to his furnishing surety bond in the sum of Rs,5,00,000 to the satisfaction of the Ilaqa/Judicial Magistrate with the further direction to the petitioner not to sell or transfer the same till the decision of its genuineness by the competent forum. However, this order will not prejudice the rights of a rival claimant, if any, with better title.