' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has challenged the order, dated 17-7-2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gujrat through which he confiscated surety bond of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved filed revision petition against the said order, which has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order, dated 10-5-2007. Hence, the writ petition.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased a car bearing Registration No. STH- 7499 Honda Civic, Model 1997 from one Adnan for a consideration of Rs.4,15,000 through Iqrar- nama on 10-3-2001, who had purchased it from one Muhammad Luqman, the original owner through transfer letter. The possession of car along with open transfer letter was handed over to the petitioner. On 5-11-2001 the local police took the said car in custody on the ground that the same had been stolen from Karachi and F.I.R. No.200-1998, dated 3-9-1998 had been registered against unknown persons at Police Station Azizabad Karachi under section 392/34, P.P.C. According to the F.I.R. No. 200 of 1998, the stolen car bears Registration No. ABE-123, Model 1998. Engine No. PK- 6V-9602101, Chasis No.PK-66306857. After the recovery of said car froth the Dera of brother of petitioner namely Safdar Mumtaz Sindhu, another F.I.R. No. 602 of 2001 under section 420/411 P.P.C.
Was registered against the said brother of the petitioner at Police Station Kunjah Gujrat. The petitioner being the bona fide purchaser of said car filed an application for its superdari before learned Judicial Magistrate, Gujrat (respondent No.2), which was granted to the petitioner vide order, dated 2-7-2002 subject to furnishing surety bond to the tune of Rs.6,00,000 with the direction to get the vehicle in-question transferred in his name within one month. Respondent No.3 being aggrieved filed review petition before respondent No.2, which was declined vide order, dated 10-3- 2003. According to the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, no party has been able to prove the ownership of the car and the petitioner has been declared innocent by the police in the aforesaid F.I.R. Respondent No.3 challenged the above said orders through criminal revision, which was allowed by respondent No.1 vide order, dated 21-3-2004. Thereafter respondent No.3 moved an application for superdari of the said car before respondent No.2, who ordered to hand over the vehicle inquestion to respondent No.3 and a case F.I.R. No.938 of 2004, dated 14-12-2004 was registered against the petitioner under section 406, P.P.C. At Police Station Civil Line, Gujrat. The petitioner has also lodged a case F.I.R. No.40 of 2005, dated 9-2-2005 under section 381-A, P.P.C. At Police Station Jalapur Jattan, Gujrat for the theft of said car. On 11-2-2005, the petitioner moved an application before respondent No. 2 that case of superdari of the car be consigned to record till the recovery of car in dispute, but respondent No.2 dismissed the same vide order, dated 4-10-2005 with the direction to confiscate the surety amount, which was submitted by the petitioner at the time of taking the car on superdari. The said surety bond was also sent to the Tehsildar for verification, which was found forged and then a case was registered against the petitioner for the submission of fake surety bond and surety bond of the petitioner was confiscated vide order, dated 17-7-2006.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was a bona fide purchaser of the car in dispute, but later on the car was stolen and it could not be possible for the petitioner to produce the same before the Court. The petitioner has filed personal surety bond and he was being treated harshly and on one hand his car has been stolen and on the other hand surety bond submitted by the petitioner has been confiscated.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the contents of this writ petition and all the other requisite documents attached with this petition.
5. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was given a car on superdari by respondent No.2 subject to furnishing surety bond, who was bound to produce the car before the Court as and when it was required, but the petitioner failed to produce the same. Admittedly, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner under section 406, P.P.C. Subsequently, the petitioner, prima facie in order to cover up the default got registered a case F.I.R. No. 40 of 2005 that his car has been stolen. The surety bond was ordered to be verified, which has been found fake. In such circumstances, the conduct of the petitioner does not permit him for any lenient view and he is not entitled to any extraordinary relief, as the petitioner did not submit genuine surety bond at the time of taking the car on superdari. The learned Courts below have rightly confiscated the surety bond submitted by the petitioner on his failure to produce the car before the Court as he was bound to produce it as per condition of superdari-nama.
' Resultantly, this writ petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed in limine.