ORDER.
Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, petitioner Haji Allah Ditta has challenged the legality and propriety of order dated 21.03.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mian Channu whereby revision petition filed by Respondent No, 3 against orders dated 27.04.2012 and 16.05.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate was allowed and the custody of car Toyota bearing registration No, 1528/LE-10 was handed over to him subject to his furnishing indemnity bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000,000/- with one surety.
2. Tersely, the facts of the case are that Respondent No, 3 was arrested on suspicion by the police vide rapt No, 11 dated 23.04.2012 when he was carrying pistol in a car Toyota XLI, bearing Registration No, 1528/LE-10. The said vehicle was taken into possession under Section 550, Cr.P.C.
Thereafter, Respondent No, 3 made an application for handing over the possession of aforesaid car before the learned Area Magistrate, who after perusing the ownership documents, handed over the possession of the car to the petitioner subject to furnishing surety bonds vide order dated 27.04.2012. Feeling aggrieved, Respondent No, 3 filed a review petition claiming that one Khalil Ahmad, head-constable alongwith others had snatched the aforesaid vehicle from him on gun- point from the main-gate of Mian Channu Katchery, he reported the matter to the police and also filed a petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It was further asserted that earlier he had lodged Rapt No, 9 dated 12.04.2012 regarding missing of the documents of the aforesaid vehicle. Respondent No, 3, in connivance with the officials of Motor Registering Authority, prepared forged and fictitious documents and got transferred the car in his name. Learned Magistrate, after hearing the parties, proceeded to dismissed the review petition vide order dated 16.05.2012.
Respondent No, 3 assailed both the aforesaid orders before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mian Channu, which was allowed vide impugned order dated 21.03.2014. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being bona fide purchaser and having valid documents with regard to the ownership of the vehicle in question, is entitled to its possession and if Respondent No, 3 had any grievance that the ownership documents of the car in issue are forged, he has an appropriate remedy to approach either the Motor Registering Authority or the Civil Court for the redressal of his grievance.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for Respondent No, 3 submits that the vehicle in issue was lastly possessed by Respondent No, 3 at the time of its captivity by the police under Section 550, Cr.P.C. and thus, he being last possessor, is entitled to its custody as directed by the learned Revisional Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State and have perused the available record with their able assistance.
6. Admittedly, the car in issue stood transferred in the name of the present petitioner on 19.04.2012, four days to its capture by the police under Section 550, Cr.P.C. on 23.04.2012 and on the basis of said document, the Spurdari of the vehicle was handed over to him by the learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 27.04.2012. On the other hand, the claim of Respondent No, 3 was that he being last possessor, was entitled to the custody of the car and the police officials had no locus stanch to inquire about the documents of the said car rather the police officials, in connivance with Respondent No, 3, had made a plan to capture the vehicle from him and its handing over to the present petitioner. During the course of arguments, it has been pointed out that the present petitioner is son-in-law of the respondent and had good relations prior to the capture of the vehicle by the police. The factual controversy as to the ownership of the car in issue can only be determined by the learned Civil Court after recording the evidence. At present, the car in issue has validly been transferred in the name of present petitioner and he is entitled to get the same on Spurdari as an interim arrangement. Yes, the car was taken into possession lastly from Respondent No, 3 but the question remains that he has no document or any proof of its ownership or possession in any capacity whatsoever and in absence of 'any such proof, the better course for the Court is to hand it over to the person having prima facie its valid documents as a rule of caution and, thus, the petitioner is entitled to retain the interim possession of the car in issue. However, if any of the parties has any dispute with regard to the documents of the car in issue, he may approach the learned Civil Court. 6-A. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the ease, the petition in hand is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.3.2014 stands set aside.