' MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.--- The petitioner seeks quashment of order, dated 20-9-2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Liaqatpur, whereby revision petition filed by respondent No,1 against the order, dated 6-9-2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class/Civil Judge, Liaqatpur, was accepted and the learned Additional Sessions Judge by setting aside the order of learned Magistrate dated 6-9-2004 directed that FIAT Tractor bearing No,5304/RNL be given to respondent No,1 on Superdari, subject to furnishing two local sureties in the sum of Rs,5,00,000 to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
2. The facts in brief are that the above mentioned tractor was purchased by one Rana Shaukat Ali and his wife namely Salma Shaukat after obtaining loan from Zarai Tarqiati Bank but till the liquidation of said land, the tractor was got registered in the name of Zarai Taraqiati Bank. It is submitted by the petitioner that he allegedly purchased the said tractor from Rana Shaukat and his wife in the year 1999 for a consideration of Rs,4,00,000 and besides obtaining possession of the said tractor from Rana Shaukat, etc. He was also hand over registration book of the tractor by them. It is further alleged by the petitioner that Manzoor Ahmad respondent No,1 being his servant was responsible for the maintenance, of his agricultural land and in this capacity was also having custody of the said tractor for using the same for agricultural purposes. According to the petitioner, in the meanwhile he made up his mind for the sale of saiti tractor to one Ghulam Yasin Chaudhry orally and directed respondent No,1 to deliver its possession as well as registration book to him on receipt of price from said Ghulam Yasin Chaudhry, but respondent No,1 with mala fide intention and by preparing forged agreement to sell in respect of the said tractor in his favour started claiming himself as its owner, which compelled the petitioner to get a criminal case registered against respondent under section 406, P.P.C. Through F.I.R. No,69 dated 24-3-2004 with Police Station Taranda Muhammad Panah. During course of investigation, the police got recovered tractor from respondent No,1, however, declared the said respondent as innocent. In the meanwhile, the respondent No,1 also prepared a forged letter of transfer dated 24-6-2004 of the said tractor from Rana Shaukat Ali and his wife in his favour and thus, got the tractor transferred in his name from Motor Registration Authority, although the same could not have been transferred at all, unless payments and liquidation of the bank loan. Since the petitioner was not satisfied with the investigation of the case declaring respondent as innocent, hence on his application, the investigation was entrusted to Nasrullah and Alamdar Hussain Inspectors who after investigation came to the conclusion that although the case got registered by the petitioner was false yet, the alleged transfer letter in his favour was also not proper being based on forged documents prepared by the respondent. It appears that in the meanwhile both, the petitioner and respondent No,1 moved applications seeking possession of the said tractor from police on Superdari. Both the said applications were decided by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Liaqatpur who vide order, dated 6-9-2004 directed the delivery of possession of the tractor in question on Superdari to the petitioner subject to his furnishing surety bond of Rs,5,00,000 each with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. Against the said order of the learned Magistrate, Manzoor Ahmad respondent No,1 filed a revision petition which was allowed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Liaqatpur vide order, dated 29-3-2005, whereby the order of Superdari in favour of the petitioner was set aside and tractor in dispute was ordered to be given on Superdari to the respondent No,1 subject to his furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rs,5,00,000 to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, hence, this petition.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Additional Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order has in fact decided the title of the tractor, whereas no criminal Court can decide the question of title. Further submits that respondent No,1 was declared innocent by the successive investigations yet neither any final report for cancellation of the above mentioned criminal case in terms of section 173, Cr.P.C. Was prepared nor submitted to the concerned Court for final orders till date, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not right in giving Superdari of the tractor in dispute to the respondent. Further argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge exceeded his jurisdiction while passing the impugned order as neither the order of the learned trial Court giving Superdari of the tractor to the petitioner suffered from any legal or procedural defect nor even the learned Additional Sessions Judge pointed out any illegality having been committed by the learned Magistrate while granting Superdari of the tractor in dispute to the petitioner. Further by placing reliance on the case Tariq Naveed Ahmed v. Allah Ditta and 2 others 2004 PCr.LJ 1169, learned counsel argued that unless the question of title is determined by the civil Court, the respondent could not be given tractor in dispute on Superdari.
Reliance has also been placed on the cases Qaiser Shafeeq Vohra v. The State and another 1991 M LD 2590 and Humayun Azam v. Ch. Sadiq Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station Kunjah, District Gujrat and 3 others 1999 M LD 1676.
4. Conversely, Mr. Mumtaz Hussain Bazmi, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No,1 has argued that although there is no cavil to the proposition that the question of title can only be determined by the civil Court yet by no means the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge can be interpreted as one determining the title of the disputed tractor. Learned counsel ,contends that it is now an established principle of law recognized by the superior Court that custody of the property involved in a criminal case under sections 516-A and 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is ordinarily to be given to person from whose possession it was taken and the learned Additional Sessions Judge while restoring possession of the disputed tractor committed no illegality or irregularity, rather the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge was in line with the statutory law as well as the law declared by the superior Courts, thus, the same was passed with jurisdiction.
Learned counsel has placed reliance on the case Munir Ahmad v. Barkhurdar and 2 others 1992 SCM R 1454; Khalid Saleem v. Muhammad Jameel alias Billa and 6 others 1996 SCM R 1544; Zahuruddin v. Muhammad Inayatullah Khan and another 1973 PCr.LJ 288; Mst. Nadira Naeem v. Aziz Uddin and another 1997 PCr.LJ 1006 and Ch. Muhammad Farook v. The State and another 1970 PCr.LJ 1253.
5. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire relevant record in the light of sections 516-A, 517, 520 and 561-A, Cr.P.C. And also the cited judgments.
6. After careful perusal of the above mentioned statutory provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, I reach to an irresistible conclusion that in case of dispute about ownership of property involved in a criminal case, it is the civil Court which has exclusive jurisdiction to record and give findings about title of a person. However, in the present case, admittedly the real owner of the tractor in dispute is Zarai Taraqiati Bank and unless the loan liability of the said Bank is liquidated, no one other than the Zarai Taraqiati Bank can be declared as owner of the tractor in dispute, notwithstanding that either of the two parties was in possession and open transfer letter having been given by the original transferee/lessee i,e, Rana Shaukat and his wife, therefore, in the present case the question as to which of the two parties, is in possession of the original transfer letter having been executed by Rana Shaukat to show his alleged title of the tractor in dispute, becomes irrelevant and no useful purpose would be served at this stage to direct any party to approach the civil Court for getting a verdict about their title. However, still this will be no bar either for the petitioner or respondent No,1 to approach the civil Court for obtaining a verdict about his alleged title and in case if any suit to this effect is filed, the civil Court will be at liberty to decide as to which of the party in fact purchased the tractor from Rana Shaukat and his wife, the original transferee and of course such type of verdict would only be recorded by the civil Court keeping in view and safeguarding the interest of the Zarai Taraqiati Bank, advancing loan to Rana Shaukat and his wife from the public exchequer.
7. So far as the question of Superdari of the tractor in dispute between the petitioner and respondent No,1 is concerned, without commenting upon the outcome of criminal case and leaving the said question for the decision of the competent Court as to whether criminal case was got registered rightly by the petitioner against respondent No,1 or the said respondent was falsely involved in the said case and there was a sufficient ground for cancellation of the same, I am inclined to follow the well-known principle laid down by the superior Courts in the cited judgments that question of Superdari be answered in favour of the person from whose possession the disputed property was taken and the same should be returned to him either till the decision of the criminal Court or the findings recorded by the civil Court about title of the contesting claimant.
8. Admittedly the tractor in dispute was taken into possession by the police from the custody of respondent No,1, hence, he was entitled to its Superdari and as such while passing the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was fully justified by setting aside the order of learned Magistrate and restoring Superdari of the tractor in favour of the respondent subject to his furnishing two local sureties in the sum of Rs,5, 00,000 in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. Resultantly, I find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
9. Before parting with this order, I would like to issue directions to the S.H.O. Police Station Taranda Muhammad Panah to submit his final report under section 173, Cr.P.C. In case F.I.R. No,69 dated 24- 3-2004 under section 406, P.P.C. Within ten days from receipt of this order, and when such report is submitted the concerned Court shall pass final appropriate order either for proceeding with the trial of the accused or for cancellation of the said case within two weeks of receipt of the said report. Further it is made clear that any fmding/observation recorded in this order is purely tentative in nature and will have no bearing on the decision of criminal case by the concerned Court who shall be free to decide the said case on merits strictly in accordance with law. Similarly, in case either of the party opts to move the civil Court for determination of valid title, the same shall also be decided uninfluenced by any observation/finding recorded in this order. Office to send copy of this order to the S.H.O. Police Station Taranda Muhammad Panah through District Police Officer, Rahim Yar Khan.