KAZIM ALI MALIK, J. --- Adnan Akhtar, petitioner got registered case F.I.R. No. 87, dated 30.3.2007 under Sections 406/468/471/34, P.P.C. At Police Station, Gojra, District Mandi Bahaud Din with an allegation that on 5.9.2006 in the evening Muhammad Haleem, respondent No. 7 and two others borrowed Car No. 740-RL on some pretext and then got it transferred in his name dishonestly and fraudulently on the basis of open transfer letter, open transfer deed and registration book. The complainant further alleged, that while handing over the vehicle to Muhammad Haleem, respondent No. 1 he did not take out his brief case containing gold ornaments and clothes from the car. The car was not taken into possession in the above-said case. It so happened that Police Station Miana Gondhal seized the said car under Section 550, Cr.P.C. In the meantime, Muhammad Haleem, respondent No. 7 sold the car to Zahid Iqbal, respondent No. 8. Adnan Akhtar, petitioner filed a complaint before the Motor Registering Authority seeking cancellation of registration in favour of the respondents. The Excise and Taxation Officer/Motor Registering Authority, Rawalpindi cancelled the transfer dated 8.9.2006 in favour of Muhammad Haleem, Respondent No. 7 and further transfer dated 13.4.2007 in favour of Zahid Iqbal. Respondent No. 8.
2. Adnan Akhtar, petitioner and Zahid Iqbal, respondent No 8 made separate applications for temporary custody of the seized car before the Area Magistrate which were dismissed vide order dated 8.4.2008 with an observation that they should get determined the question of title in the disputed vehicle from the Civil Court. The petitioner and respondent No 8 filed revision petitions against the above-said orders of the Area Magistrate. The Revisional Court allowed the request of temporary custody of the vehicle made by Zahid Iqbal, respondent No. 8 whereas the similar request made by Adnan Akhtar, Petitioner was turned down. Hence, this Constitutional petition.
3. I have heard both the sides and have perused the record. The transfer deed and transfer letter on the basis of which the vehicle in question was transferred in favour of Muhammad Haleem, respondent No. 7 are admittedly genuine documents. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said or alleged that Muhammad Haleem, respondent No. 7 got transferred the vehicle in his name on the basis of bogus documents. The only allegation by the petitioner in this regard, in brief, is that he handed over open transfer deed and open transfer letter of the car to Muhammad Haleem, respondent when he borrowed it on 5.9.2006. The petitioner further alleged in the F.I.R. That he also did not take out his brief case from the car at relevant time, which contained gold ornaments and other valuables. Although hard and fast rules about human conduct and behaviour are not available, yet it was offensive to accepted standard of normal human behaviour to hand over open transfer deed, open transfer letter, registration book of the car and brief case containing gold ornaments and other valuables to Muhammad Haleem, respondent when he allegedly borrowed the car on the pretext of transporting his old mother to the hospital. The allegation by the petitioner Adnan Akhtar appears to be ridiculous. In the normal course of events he was required to take out open transfer letter and open transfer deed alongwith the brief case containing gold ornaments and other valuables from the car while handing over the same to respondent No. 7. It is also note- worthy that the alleged handing over and taking over of the car took place on 5.9.2006 whereas the F.I.R. In this regard was lodged on 30.3.2007. How can I believe that after handing over the car to respondent No. 7 for transporting his old mother to the hospital, Adnan Akhtar, petitioner kept quite for six months without inquiring as to where the car bad been taken away with brief case and the above-said documents. Silence of the petitioner for a period of six months is a circumstance, which has made his version extremely doubtful. The Investigating Officer of Police Station Gojra did not seize the car during the investigation of the criminal case. The police of Police Station Miana Gondhal seized the said car under Section 550, Cr.P.C. Despite the fact that the car was duly registered in the name of respondent No. 8. It appears that the petitioner adopted different devices to get back the car with the help of police. I have minutely gone through the provisions of Motor Vehicles Ordinance and other laws and Rules governing the subject of registration of vehicles and could not find any provision or rule, which may empower the Registering Authority to cancel the registration once made on the basis of valid and genuine documents. The Motor Registering Authority conducted full-fledged trial of the controversy by assuming the role of Civil Court and then delivered a judgment in favour of the petitioner against the record.
4. The vehicle was in possession of respondent No. 8 when it was seized under Section 550, Cr.P.C. Without any legal and factual justification. The learned Revisional Court rightly returned the vehicle to respondent No. 8 from whose possession it was taken. I see no legal and factual justification to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the Revisional Court. With this observation, I dismiss this petition. However,with the clarification that the observations made in this order being the result of tentative assessment of the material for the limited purpose of temporary custody of the vehicle would not adversely affect the counter claims of both the sides as and when laid before the Civil Court.