AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, J.---This criminal revision application has been tiled under section 435/439, Cr.P.C. Against the impugned order dated 30-4-2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge (Central) Karachi in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.75 of 2010, whereby the application under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. For the superdai of the subject vehicle i.e., BD-2417, Engine No.0190612, Chassis -No.95007953, Make Parado has been declined to the applicant.
2. It is, inter alia, contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the instant vehicle was purchased by the applicant on hire purchase basis from Orix Leasing Pakistan Limited in May, 2006, whereafter the possession remained with the applicant throughout and all the leasing charges were paid upto date and eventually the vehicle was also transferred in the name of the applicant on 25-3-2010. Per learned counsel, on 14-9-2010 subject property was snatched from'the driver of the applicant in respect of which roznanicha entry was entered at Police Station Shara-e-Noor Jahan, whereafter an F.I.R. Dated 11-3-2010 was registered. Per learned counsel, during snap checking on 3-3-2010, the subject vehicle was recovered from one Muhammad Maqbool, who claimed to have purchased the same from one Yasmin Jabbar, whereas the vehicle was in the name of one Muhammad Ali. As per learned counsel for the applicant, after snatching of the instant subject vehicle the chassis numbers were tampered and fraudulently the vehicle was got registered at Quetta on the fake registration book. It is submitted that the applicant is in possession of the original documents of the vehicle and the upto date payment of instalments to the Orix Leasing Company in respect of the subject vehicle, whereas report of the police about tampering the chassis number also reflects, that the claim of the objector namely, Muhammad Maqbool is bogus and based on fake documents. Learned counsel submitted that the learned trial Court has not taken into consideration undisputed documents and report of the police, which cannot be equated with the fake registration book and bogus documents relied upon by the objector. Per learned counsel, the impugned order is erroneous in law and fact, hence liable to be set aside.
Notices were issued to the respondent No.1, however; as per bailiff report he could not be served on the given address, as he was not residing on such address. Thereafter he was required to be served through concerned SHOT who submitted the, same report. In order to ensure proper service upon respondent No I, who contested the superdari of the subject vehicle before learned trial Court, publication in daily Nawa-i-Waqt dated 15-12-2010 was made, however, no one attended the Court.
Accordingly, on 20-12-2010, service against respondent No.1 held-good. Notices were also issued to the official of ACLC, in response to which S.I. Muhammad Naeem appeared in Court along with documents in respect of subject vehicle Toyota Prado Jeep 1997, 2980 CC. BD-2417, Chassis No.KZJ- 95-0079531, Engine No.IKZ-0546102.
3. On perusal of the documents produced by the concerned S.-I. Muhammad Naeem, that after snatching of the subject vehicle and registration of the F.I.R. The chassis number of the subject vehicle were re-punched. As per opinion expressed in the examination report dated 10th March, 2010, which is reproduced as under:- "Examination of the above mentioned vehicle has revealed that the last five digits of present Chassis No. KZJ95-0092363 are repunched."
4. On perusal of the documents produced by the applicant as well as the documents produced by S.-I. Muhammad Naeem in Court, the learned A.P.-G. Extended his no objection if superdgi of the subject vehicle is handed over to the applicant however, subject to furnishing personal bond.
5. From perusal of section 516-A, Cr.P.C, it emerges that before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial when such property appears to have been used for commission of any offence or produced before any Criminal Court. Court in normal course is to restore possession to the party from whose possession vehicle recovered, however, stolen property cannot be given on superdari to a purchaser from thief. Similarly, last owner is also entitled to superdari of the vehicle taken in possession by police particularly in the absence of any other lawful claimant of such vehicle. A person producing original certificate of registration and other relevant documents of the vehicle prima facie revealed him, to be its owner, hence entitled for the custody of the vehicle during pendency of the case.
6. In the instant case, it appears that the applicant is in possession of all the original documents including the registration book which reflects that subject vehicle was purchased from Orix Leasing Pakistan Limited and after making all the instalments the same was duly transferred in the name of the present applicant. Such vehicle was snatched from the driver of the applicant for which an F.I.R.
Was registered and during investigation the same was recovered from respondent No.1, who claimed to have purchased the same vehicle from third party, however, on inquiry and investigation, it has come on record that the subject vehicle has been subjected to tampering of the chassis number. The said claimant namely Muhammad Maqbool who initially objected the superdari of the subject vehicle in favour of the applicant, in spite of repeated notices by this Court, did not appear to substantiate his claim or entitlement over the subject vehicle. It is further learnt that the address given by the respondent was incorrect whereas documents produced during investigation are.Bogus and fake as per the report of Investigating Officer present in Court.
7. In the instant case the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge (Central) Karachi has not been challenged by respondent No.1 or any other claimant of the subject vehicle, whereas the applicant claiming to be the real owner of subject vehicle has approached this Court for the release of vehicle on superdari. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant, who is in possession of original documents of ownership including the registration book of the subject vehicle is entitled for the custody of the said vehicle particularly when no other claimant has come forward before this Court for such purpose. There seems no justification for the police to keep custody of subject vehicle as there is likelihood that the same will be misused, damaged and deteriorated. In this regard, reference can be made to the reported case of Muhammad Ramzan v.
Additional Sessions Judge and others 2008 YLR 918 and also to the case of Sajjad Ali v. The State 2008 YLR 571.
8. In view of hereinabove facts, I am of the view that the impugned order in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 75 of 2010 is not sustainable in law and facts, which is hereby set aside. The learned Sessions Judge (Central) Karachi, is directed to hand over the superdari of the subject vehicle to the applicant on furnishing personal bond.
Instant Criminal Revision Application stands disposed of in the above terms.