' MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J.---It is argued by learned counsel that petitioner is complainant of case FIR: No,167 of 2010 dated 13-3-2012 under section 406/506, P.P.C. Police Station City, Lodhran for criminal breach of trust by respondent No,3 with regard to Tractor. During investigation the said Tractor was recovered, accused/ respondent No,3 was declared guilty and the Tractor was handed over to respondent No,3(sic) on Superdari. It is further argued that as the accused were not being arrested, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No,912 of 2012, whereupon direction was issued to DPO- Lodhran to look into grievance of the petitioner, hold an inquiry and if officials are found guity in the performance of duty, he shall proceed against them departmentally. The grievance of the petitioner is that under the garb of said direction of this court the SSP (Investigation) on 21-1-2012 held that Investigating Officer had acted beyond his territorial jurisdiction, as such, directed the Investigating Officer to recover the Tractor from the petitioner and produce it before him. This order/direction has been assailed by the petitioner through the instant writ petition.
2. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the available record.
3. I would not like to comment on the merits or demerits of the case, as any finding or observation of this court, may subsequently prejudice the case of either side. However, it is established from the record 'that after registration of case, through proper legal course the custody of the disputed Tractor was handed over to respondent No,3 on Superdari by an order of the Ilaqa Magistrate. It is no where mentioned that said Superdari order was either set aside by any court or the Superdari was cancelled for any other reason. Therefore, prima facie the order giving the Tractor to respondent No,3 (sic) on Superdari, still holds the field. In the presence of such an order, the SSP (Investigation), at least, was not vested with any authority to direct the Investigating Officer to recover the disputed Tractor from the complainant/petitioner for its production before him.
Consequently, the impugned order of the SSP (Investigation) to the extent it directs recovery of Tractor from the petitioner, is declared illegal and without lawful authority. Other conclusions by the SSP (Investigation) in the impugned order/direction dated 21-1-2012, relate to factual assessment and this court while sitting in constitutional jurisdiction, cannot determine the truth or falsehood of such conclusions. This writ petition, therefore, is partially allowed in the above terms.