1. SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, J.---By this order I intend to decide the present criminal revision bearing No,22 of 2010 filed by applicant Ali Hyder against the order, dated 7-4-2010 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana in Criminal Miscellaneous No, Nil of 2001.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 21-1-2010 an F.I.R. bearing No,7 of 2001 was registered at Police Station, Rahmatpur under sections 324, 353, 435, P.P.C. stated therein that a policy party vide Entry No,12, dated 21-1-2010 went to patrolling in the area. During patrolling they received wireless message that many people were protesting before DPO Office Larkana along with tractor trolleys and they were chanting slogans and abusing police officers. The police party reached at pointed place and saw that 150/200 persons were standing and had blocked the road with seven tractor trolleys and one Suzuki pickup along with Echo Sound System standing in the Centre of road. Mir Sikandar, Lakhmir and Deedar were leading the procession, they were chanting slogans and abusing police. The police party asked them to stop chanting and abusing and to open the road and disperse the procession. Out of them 50 to 100 persons took out Iron bars and lathies from the tractor trolleys. On that the policy party called help through wireless and S.H.O. Civil Line with his subordinate staff, SPO/S.H.O. Hyderi, S.H.O. Market, S.H.O. Police Station Waleed and S.H.O. Police Station Dari came thereon mobiles. Accused on seeing the police force deterred them from discharging out their duties. The accused assaulted the police force. The police apprehended/arrested 33 persons who were leading the procession and secured the tractor trolleys and Suzuki Pickup, mashirnama was prepared, accused with recovered property were brought to Police Station, F.I.R was registered and challan was submitted after usual investigation.
3. The present applicant filed an application under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. for return of tractor Al-Ghazi Fiat, Engine No, 16950 and Chassis No,131595-05 of yellow colour on Superdari basis but the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana on 7-4-2010 dismissed, the application of the applicant hence the applicant has filed the present revision application before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on 21-1-2010 the applicant along with his son Ali Sher came to Larkana in order to get repair of their tractor trolley from work shop and after repair of the same *hen they reached at SP Chowk near D.I.G. Office Larkana they found the chowk was blocked by some people who were protesting against Larkana police. Due to blockage of traffic they stood there and waiting for clearance of the road. In the meanwhile the police surrounded the procession, started lathi charge, arrested the people and captured the tractor trolleys. The police brought the applicant and his son Ali Sher along with tractor trolley at Police Station Rahmatpur, conducted their personal search, took cash of Rs,5000, from the applicant and Rs,2000 from his son Ali Sher. Police had also taken original documents of tractor and parked the tractor in the surroundings of Police Station, Rahmatpur along with other tractors/vehicles. It is further argued by the learned counsel that the applicant's son was released on bail by this Court. The learned counsel for the applicant cited 2004 PCr.LJ 1169 wherein it is held that criminal Court is not competent to determine question of title or ownership of the property as it can only be decided after recording of evidence and for this purpose civil Court is the proper forum. In 2007 MLD 1096 it is held that question Of Superdari should normally :be answered in favour of the person from whose possession the disputed property was taken and. same should be returned to him either if the decision of criminal Court or finding of the civil Court about title of the contesting claimants. In PLD 2004 Peshawar 91., it is held by the High Court that petitioner was the only person who had claimed Superdari of the vehicle in question. Said vehicle was taken into possession from custody and control of petitioner---It would, in the circumstances, be just and legal to accept application filed by petitioner in respect of SuperdariIn case where no rival claimants were for Superdari of a vehicle, then vehicle should ordinarily be given on Superdari to person from whom it was taken possession of---Criminal Courts were not competent to investigate into the question of title as their jurisdiction was confined under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. or for that matter under section 517, Cr.P.C. to the determination of entitlement of possession and not title to the property. In 1999 PCr.LJ 968, the Court held that Police had seized the tractor from respondent under section 550, Cr.P.C.-- Registration of the tractor was found to be forged---Superdari was handed over to respondent by trial Court after recording evidence--- Petitioner and respondent claimed their respective right of ownership---Both had documents in support of their respective stand-- No case had been registered with police regarding the tractor---Ingredients of section 516, Cr.P.C. were lacking--- Effect---Tractor had to be returned to the person from whom it was seized---Order of granting Superdari to respondent was neither illegal nor unlawful nor without jurisdiction.
5. The learned counsel for, the applicant has also relied on 2000 MLD 197, the Court held that the Court should be more vigilant and on guard to save the property from devastation where it was likely to be' misused, damaged or its utility was to be diminished--Technicalities or delay on the part of Court might cause hardship or irreparable loss to the parties to the proceedings--Vehicle was given on Superdari in circumstances. The learned counsel has also cited 2005 MLD 176 Placitum (c) it is held that scope of section 516-A, Cr.P.C. was limited and the Court in normal course would restore possession to the party, from whose possession vehicle was recovered and question of title would be left open to be decided by Civil Court. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is no boundary wall at the police station where the tractor trolley is parked and there is apprehension that the parts of the tractor and the trolley will be theft in case the tractor trolley remained at Police: Station. Moreover if the tractor trolley is not maintained properly there is possibility that the parts of the tractor trolley will be damaged and.
6. The applicant before approaching this Court filed the application before the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana. Police send the report in favour of the applicant but the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana did not rely upon the said' report and has rejected the application of the applicant, therefore, the applicant approached this Court by, filing the present revision application.
7. I have heard the arguments of Mr.Shamsuddin Abbasi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Ali Raza Pathan, State counsel and have also gone through the relevant record and the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the applicant. Learned State counsel opposed the grant of this revision application.
8. In view of the fact that police had recovered the subject tractor trolley from the possession of the applicant and moreover the police gave report in favour of the applicant the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana without applying his mind and without carefully reading the case law cited by the advocate for the applicant which has been referred to in the order dated 7-4-2010 of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, the learned Judge rejected the application of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant during the arguments submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to furnish the surety for the release of tractor trolley 'on Superdari and further undertook to produce the tractor trolley as and when directed by the trial Court. In view of the dictum laid down by the Courts in the reported judgments referred to above and the relevant portions thereof reproduced, I hereby allow the present revision application of the applicant on Superdari in furnishing solvent surety of Rs,300,000 with P.R. bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with direction to the applicant to produce the same as and when directed by the trial Court.