MALIK SHAHZAD AHMAD KHAN, J.---The instant petition has been filed against order dated 10-3-2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Jaranwala, whereby application for "superdari" of "tractor trolley" bearing Registration No.2082/BRB Ford, was dismissed and against the order dated 4-5-2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaranwala, whereby through consolidated judgment, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaranwala dismissed ..The revision, petition filed by the petitioner, whereas criminal revision filed by respondent No. 2 was accepted and "superdari" of the above mentioned "tractor trolley" was ordered to be given to said respondent.
2. According to the facts of the present case Muhammad Zahid respondent No. 3, got a case registered vide F.I.R. No.128 of 2011 dated 10-2-2011 offences under sections 395/342, P.P.C. At Police Station Khurrianwala, District Faisalabad. It was alleged in the said F.I.R. That on 16-1-2011, he along with Inamullah son of Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Abdullah son of Muhammad Suleman, was coming back from "Mureedkay" to Chak No.415 Toba Tek Singh, on the above mentioned "tractor trolley". When they reached "Makuwana" Chowk near By-Pass Khurrianwala, the petitioner (Zulfiqar Ali) along with seven unknown persons while armed with firearm weapons, reached in front of the "tractor trolley" and stopped their cars right in front of the same. It is further alleged that the petitioner and his co-accused, forcibly snatched the above mentioned "tractor trolley" and took the same along with petitioner and above mentioned two persons towards their ."dera", where the complainant and the above mentioned persons were locked in a room. It is added in the above mentioned F.I.R. That the complainant and his above mentioned companions were released by the petitioner and his co-accused on the next day and the complainant was also given threats of dire consequences by the petitioner. Ultimately, the complainant Muhammad Zahid lodged the above- mentioned F.I.R. At Police Station Khurrianwala, District Faisalabad. Thereafter the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 filed their petitions for "superdari" of the above mentioned "tractor trolly" which were dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Jaranwala vide order dated 10-3- 2011. Then two separate criminal revisions were filed by the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaranwala. The criminal revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed whereas the criminal revision filed by Hassan Ali respondent No. 2 was allowed vide the impugned order dated 4-5-2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaranwala.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has also filed a civil suit for specific performance of agreement which is pending adjudication before the learned Civil Judge, Jaranwala and the injunctive order has also been passed in the said civil suit. It is further argued that as the above mentioned "tractor trolley" was recovered from the possession of the petitioner therefore the petitioner is entitled under the law to the "superdari" of the above mentioned "tractor trolley".
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. According to the petitioner he had purchased the "tractor trolley" through an agreement but the petitioner has failed to produce any receipt to show that any payment was made by the petitioner, as a sale consideration of the above mentioned "tractor trolley". Moreover the petitioner could not produce any transfer letter from his possession, to establish that the above mentioned "tractor trolley" was sold to him. F.I.R. Has also been registered against the petitioner, wherein the A allegations of forcible snatching of above mentioned tractor trolley have been levelled against the petitioner, therefore, the ground of last possession is of no help to the petitioner. If the ground of last possession, as taken by the petitioner, is considered to be the sole basis for granting interim custody of the vehicle, then all the accused involved in theft, robbery and "dacoity", cases will claim "superdari" of the recovered vehicles as a matter of right. It will amount to vitiate the criminal proceedings initiated against such type of accused and shall give them a licence to commit offences of alike nature and get the superdari of the stolen/snatched vehicles on the ground of last possession. This shall frustrate the law of the land and shall deprive the actual owners of their valuable property, which is not the intention of law. While observing this, I am fortified by the case- law reported as Qaiser Shafeeq Vohra. v. The State, and others (1991 M LD 2590) wherein it has been held that superdari of a vehicle cannot be given to a person against whom allegations of theft have been levelled. The ownership of respondent No. 2 is established through documentary evidence as the above mentioned vehicle stands transferred in the name of said respondent. So far as the stay order granted by Civil Court in favour of the petitioner is concerned, it was categorically mentioned in the said stay order that the said order will not affect any judicial proceedings pending between the parties. In the above circumstances, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaranwala is strictly in accordance with law.
6. In the light of above, I do not find any legal or factual infirmity in the impugned order, calling for interference in the constitutional jurisdiction. This petition thus has no merits and the same i5 hereby dismissed. However, any observation made in the impugned judgment or in the present order will not prejudice the claim of either party, at the time of final adjudication of the cases pending between them.
7. In view of the above discussion, the instant petition is dismissed in limine.