' HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.---Through this writ petition, order, dated 23-5-2006 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lodhran, whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order, dated 29-4-2006 passed by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Dunyapur, was dismissed, has been challenged.
2. Brief facts of the case which have given rise to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner who claims himself to be the owner of a bus No,LHP-159, which was allegedly purchased by him from one Noor Ahmad Khan against the consideration amount of Rs.5,25,000, got a case registered vide F.I.R. No,118 of 2005, dated 9-6-2005, under section 406, P.P.C. With police station City Dunyapur, District Lodhran, alleging therein that on 1-4-2005 while the above mentioned bus was in possession of Muhammad Sharif, driver, the same was hired out to Irshad and Muhammad Basharat accused for travelling to Sakhi Sawar. While the bus was on its way to said destination 5/6 persons intercepted the same. After dispossession the driver and his companions, the said culprits drove away the said bus. During the investigation of the said case, a bus was taken into possession under section 550, Cr.P.C. By the police on the pointing out of the complainant/petitioner herein. At the time of the recovery, the said bus was found parked at Rana Petrol Pump, Chowk Arifwala, Pakpattan. On inquiries made by the police, it transpired that the said bus belonged to Syed Irfan Hussain Shah, who owed some money to the owner of the Petrol Pump, as a sale amount of diesel purchased by him. At the time of the recovery, the said bus was bearing Registration No,LXK-3211. During the recovery proceedings, Syed Irfan Hussain Shah, respondent No,3, reached there and claimed himself to be the owner of said bus. It would be worthwhile to point out over here that the petitioner claims himself to be the owner of a bus which is of Nissan Make, while the buswhich was taken into possession by the police under section 550, Cr.P.C. Was Hino Make.
3. During the pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner as well as respondent No,3 approached the Magistrate, for seeking custody of the said bus on superdari, through separate applications.
After hearing both the sides, learned Magistrate Section 30, Duriyapur, i,e, respondent No,2, dismissed both the applications vide order, dated 23-4-2006. The petitioner as well as, respondent No,3 challenged the said order before the learned Sessions Judge, Lodhran, through separate Criminal Revisions which were entrusted to the Court of Mr. Tariq Mehmood Malik, learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Lodhran, who had proceeded to dismiss the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner, while the revision petition filed by the respondent No,3 was accepted and the custody of the bus in question was ordered to be delivered to the respondent No,3, on "supurdari", vide order, dated 23-5-2006. The petitioner has challenged the said consolidated order through this single writ petition, though he was required to file two separate writ petitions, one challenging the order of dismissal of his petition and the other against the order of acceptance of revision petition filed by the respondents. No,3.
4. Be that as it may, in support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner being the owner of the disputed bus was entitled to the custody of the same on supurdari and both the Courts below had committed illegality while passing the impugned order.
He adds that at the time of the recovery, the disputed bus was not in the custody of the respondent No,3 and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is against law and facts.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No,3 has contended that at the time of the recovery of the bus in question, same was in possession of respondent No,3. He adds that the petitioner has got nothing to do with the disputed bus as there is marked difference between the bus owned by him and the one which was recovered from the possession of the respondent No,3.
6. Learned Addl. A.G. Has supported the impugned order while contending that during the investigation it has been found that the disputed bus is not owned by the petitioner.
7. I have ardently heard the arguments of both the sides and carefully gone through the record.
The perusal of the record shows that a bus bearing registration No,LXK-3211 was recovered from a Petrol Pump situated at Pakpattan. At that time, it was told to the police that the bus was seized and retained by the owner of said Petrol Pump to ensurethe payment of outstanding amount of the diesel which had been purchased by the respondent No,3.
8. During the investigation, a report was sought by the police from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Lahore, regarding the make, model, chassis and Engine number of the said bus. According to the report, dated 8-3-2006 submitted by the Director Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Lahore, Chassis number of bus in question was found to be bogus. However, the make of said bus, which has got some bearing for the resolution of the dispute, was not determined by the said Director. Being dis-satisfied with the said report, the police sought second opinion/report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Capital Territory Police, Islamabad, which reported as under:- "The chemical treatment of the chassis number of the Hino Bus Reg. No,LXK-3211 in the case as subject has revealed that the chassis number place has been cut and another iron piece of frame bearing No,G194-10136 has been welded on its chassis number place."
' After the receipt of the said report and investigating the case further, the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that there was marked difference between the bus which was sped away by the accused of F.I.R. No,118 of 2005 and the bus recovered under section 550, Cr.P.C. From the constructive possession of the petitioner. It had been further clarified that the petitioner is the owner of bus No,LXP-159 of Nissan make of 1984 Model, while the bus recovered and owned by the respondent No,3 bore registration No,LXK-3211 and the said bus was Hino make of 1995 Model. It had been further concluded that the bus, owned by the petitioner, is in possession of Irshad-ul-Haq accused, but the police had failed to recover the same from his possession.
9. As a result of all the above discussion, I have reached the inescapable conclusion that while delivering the disputed bus on supurdari to the respondent No,3, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had not committed any illegality. The petitioner has failed to point out any A jurisdictional error or irregularity committed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lodhran, while passing the impugned order. Likewise, neither any illegality in the impugned order nor any misreading or non-reading of the record has been pointed out. Impugned orders have not been found out to be arbitrary in nature. It is settled principle of law that constitutional jurisdiction which is extraordinary jurisdiction can be exercised in such cases where injustice would ensue due to the illegality, perversity and unlawfulness committed by the Courts below by delivering the judgments. Even otherwise, in writ jurisdiction, the finding of facts recorded by two Courts below cannot be disturbed. Ifany case law is required in this regard, reference is made to Malik Abdul Kadi v. Atique Ahmad through legal heirs and other (PLD 2004 Kar. 555), Liaqat Ullah Khan Khatak and 5 others v. Hafeez Akhtar and 9 others (PLD 2004 Lahore 312). I am inclined to follow well-settled principle that the question of supurdari should normally be answered in favor 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 findings recorded by the civil Court about title of the contesting claimants. Reliance in this regard is placed upun the case of "Jam Sher Muhammad v. Manzoor Ahmad and another" (2006 PCr:LJ 311).
It had been, prima facie, established that the disputed bus was seized by the police from the constructive possession of the respondent No,3. The petitioner has failed to establish that disputed bus was recovered from his possession. Prima facie, the description of the bus owned by the petitioner was found to be dissimilar to that of the bus given to respondent No,3 on superdari.
10. For all the discussion made above, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has failed to impress me to exercise the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction provided under Article 199 in his favor. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
11. However, before parting with the order, it is observed that the findings rendered in this order are tentative in nature and the learned trial Court while deciding the fate of the case of F.I.R. No,118 of 2005 would not be influenced by the same. It is further observed that the parties would be at liberty to get the title of the bus in question determined through civil Court.