' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J. Muhammad Asif, Raza, petitioner has challenged the validity of order, dated 17-6-2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Lahore whereby, an application moved by the petitioner was dismissed and the application filed by the Premium Insurance Company was accepted. Through this petition, order dated 3-9-2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, has also been challenged, whereby, a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the above said order of the Magistrate, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the instant petition are that Zafar Hussain Inspector AVLS City Lahore took into possession a Vehicle No.AMF-019, Suzuki Cultus, silver colour, Model 2006, Chassis No.368031, Engine No.F-399393, from Allah Ditta son of Inayat Ullah caste Mughal resident of Chakma 105/9-L; Tehsil and District Sahiwal, under section 550, Cr.P.C. As its chassis number and engine number had appeared tampered with, during the course of investigation of case F.I.R.
No.847/06 dated 3-8-2006 under section 381-A, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Lahore.
3. The chassis number of the said vehicle was found same but its engine number read as PKF 360, X 2 X, when examined by Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore. Thereafter, the police got it examined again from Forensic Science Laboratory, Islamabad and their report disclosed the chassis number being same but its engine number read as PF 345671. The full penal/chassis sheet bearing number SF 310 PK 368031 was found welded and refitted at the chassis point, by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Islamabad and the engine number was also found tampered with, after chemical treatment.
4. The said engine number, traced by Forensic Science Laboratory, Islamabad, was found to relate to the stolen vehicle (case property) of case F.I.R. No.539/08 supra, whose original registration number was LRL-901, Model of year 2003. Allah Ditta, however, produced a registration book showing the model of the vehicle as year 2006 and according to report of Excise Office, Karachi, his registration book was found original.
5. The complainant of case F.I.R. No.539 of 2008, Waseem Ahmad, according to police report, had received full claim of the said vehicle from Premium Insurance Company.
6. In presence of above said two reports from different offices of Forensic Science Laboratories, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Lahore ordered for third examination of the vehicle from Forensic Science Laboratory, Peshawar, for further satisfaction and the report submitted by Forensic Science Laboratory, Peshawar was exactly same, they too found the engine number tampered with, chassis number same and the full chassis sheet had been found welded and refitted in the said vehicle.
7. The petitioner moved an application for seeking superdari of the said vehicle, in parallel to the identical application moved by Premium Insurance Company, which was dismissed on 17-6-2009 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Lahore and through the same order the application of the latter was allowed.
8. The petitioner preferred a revision petition under section 439-A, Cr.P.C. Before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore which again met the same fate on 3-9-2009, hence, the instant petition.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the vehicle in question had been taken into possession by the police under section 550, Cr.P.C. From the petitioner being case property of case F.I.R. No.539 of 2008 supra; the police had taken into possession the vehicle Registration number 019-AMA, silver colour Model 2006 from the possession of the petitioner and got it repeatedly examined from various offices of Forensic Science Laboratories to defeat the contention of the petitioner; the original registration book of the petitioner was found original by the Excise Office, Karachi, and they verified the authenticity of the registration book in the name of the petitioner, the learned Judicial Magistrate failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of this case and passed the impugned order overlooking the stance of the petitioner as well as the documentary evidence in the name of the petitioner; the learned Additional Sessions Judge, too could not do justice with the subject and passed an order which is injurious to the bona fide interest of the petitioner; the petitioner purchased the Vehicle No.AMF19 from Iftikhar Ismail, the last registered owner, who executed a transfer deed in favour of the petitioner and transferred the vehicle in the name of the petitioner which is the conclusive evidence qua the ownership of the petitioner who is the bona fide transferee of the vehicle in question within the meaning of section 2(24) Motor Vehicle Ordinance, 1965 but this aspect has been badly ignored by both respondents No.1 and the learned Judicial Magistrate; the vehicle in question was taken into possession under section 550, Cr.P.C. But the police did not timely inform the learned Illaqa Magistrate within the scope of section 523, Cr.P.C. Hence, all the proceedings, conducted by the police are illegal, the CIA police is not competent to take into possession the vehicle in question under section 550, Cr.P.C. Nor they could conduct investigation thereof; the impugned orders dated 17-6-2009 and 3-9-2009 are patently illegal, hence, may not be maintained.
10. On the other hand learned Assistant Advocate-General submits that the impugned orders have been passed in accordance with law and no infirmity or illegality can be found in them; the petitioner or his claim does not figure anywhere in the entire scenario of this case and he is in fact trying his luck by beating about the bush; it was Allah Ditta from whose possession the vehicle in question had been taken into custody by the police and the petitioner's claim in this regard is baseless and mendacious; the petitioner is neither here nor there so far as the facts of this case are concerned and he without any bona fide has planned to get the custody of the said vehicle; the contention of the petitioner has been rightly dealt with and rejected in the impugned orders as he has no ostensible evidence in proof of his claim; the registration book submitted by Allah Ditta had been verified by the Excise Office, Karachi and the petitioner unnecessarily is harping on the string that the said vehicle was taken into custody from his possession and that the registration book bore his name as the owner; the insurers claim has been rightly allowed in the impugned orders as they had fully covered the risks of the said car and had compensated the claim of the owner to the fullest who did not object to the claim of the Insurance Company; the letter of Subrogation with the other documents is solid evidence qua the genuineness of the claim of the Insurance Company, hence, the instant petition may be dismissed.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record.
12. The vehicle in question had been taken into possession by Zafar Hussain, Inspector on 2-4-2009 under section 550, Cr. P. C . While dealing with the investigation of case F.I.R. No.847 of 2006 supra as he apparently found the chassis and engine number of the said vehicle tampered with. The above said vehicle was firstly examined by the office of Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore, thereafter, by the office of Forensic Science Laboratory, Islamabad and lastly by the office of Forensic Science Laboratory, Peshawar. So far as, the first examination of the above said vehicle is concerned it was not found up to the mark by the police so it was required that the engine and chassis number of the said vehicle be examined through chemical treatment so it was sent to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory, Islamabad. Wherefrom, a report was received that the chassis number was same, as found by FSL, Lahore but its engine number read as PF 345671. The full panel/chassis sheet bearing number SF 310 PK 368031 was found cut, welded and refitted at the chassis point. The learned Judicial Magistrate before deciding the claims of the petitioner and that of the Insurance Company, as a matter of abundant caution, decided to get the said vehicle re- examined from the office of Forensic Science Laboratory, Peshawar and the report submitted by the said office was identical to that of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Islamabad. This exercise settled the issue that the vehicle in question was the case property of case F.I.R. No.539 of 2008 supra. That is why the applications of both the claimants was decided in relation to F.I.R. No.539 of 2008. The contention of the petitioner is not tenable for the following reasons:- a) The above said vehicle had not been taken into custody by the police from the possession of the petitioner nor he could produce any evidence in this regard. He has not hinted at any circumstance that he had gone to District Sahiwal on 2-4-2009 nor he mentioned the names of any witnesses who could support his version that he was on the driving seat of the said vehicle at the time of its take over by the police. b) The Registration Book does not disclose the name of the petitioner as owner of the said vehicle and it shows the name of one Iftikhar Ismail, a resident of Karachi, being the owner of this vehicle. The contention of the petitioner qua transfer of the said automobile in his favour is also not borne out from any registered document which could establish the correctness of the claim of the petitioner.
(c) The divergent reports of different offices of Forensic Science Laboratories indicate that mischief had been made with the engine and chassis number of the said vehicle and the whole panel sheet bearing chassis number and engine number was found to be cut and re-fixed at Its original place, which complicated the matter further. The fact however, remains that the Premium Insurance Company had paid full claim of the complainant of the F.I.R. No.539 of 2008 so they had every right, on the basis of their documents, including letter of subrogation etc. To ask for custody of the said car and the learned Judicial Magistrate had rightly found them entitled for the custody of the same.
(d) The claim of the petitioner, in attending circumstances, appears to be alien to the facts of this case as his contention is not supported by any oral or documentary evidence.
' The impugned orders do not suffer from non-reading or misreading of the record nor they could be termed as whimsical or capricious in any manner. Both the orders are well reasoned and have been passed in accordance with the spirit of law, hence, these do not call for interference by this Court.
13. The upshot of the above discussion is that the instant petition fails which is dismissed accordingly.