FIAZ AHMAD ANJUM JANDRAN, J. Through the instant criminal appeal (the appeal) , appellant impugns order dated 10.07.2019, passed by the learned Judge Special Court, CNS, Islamabad, whereby his application for superdari of vehicle No.YD-764, Engine No.Y640977, Chassis No. NZE140-2152207, Toyota Corolla GLi, Model 2012, (the vehicle) , seized by A.N.F authorities in F.I.R. No.87, dated 22.4.2019, under Section 9-C, CNSA, 1997, PS ANF RD North, Rawalpindi, was dismissed.
2. Essential and relevant facts for adjudication of the appeal are that on 22.04.2019, staff of ANF/RD North Rawalpindi intercepted the vehicle with accused Khayal-Mat Shah and on searc h, Charas weighing 10-KG was recovered from secret cavities made in its front doors. During trial, appellant filed application for superdari of the vehicle on the ground that he is owner of the vehicle and same was given to the accused on rent through an agreement. That subsequently it revealed that same is involved/detained in the subject case and that he has no nexus or knowledge of the commission of the alleged offence and is a real owner . The learned Special Judge, CNS Court, Islamabad dismissed the application vide order dated 10.07.2019, being assailed through instant criminal appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that appellant is lawful owner of the vehicle which he purchased from one Abdul Wali Khan; that the vehicle was given to the accused on rent through an agreement and not for transportation of narcotics substance; that original registration book is with the ANF authorities and that the vehicle will be deteriorated if remains in police custody .
4. Learned Special Prosecutor A.N.F supp orted the impugned order by arguing that that the vehicle has been used for transporting the huge quantity of contraband narcotics.
5. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record available on file.
6. Record reveals that the vehicle is a case property of F.I.R No.87, dated 22.4.2 019, under Section 9-C, CNSA, 1997, PS ANF RD North, Rawalpindi. Admittedly , appellant is not registered owner of the vehicle while as reveals through impugned order , case is at the stage of recording of evidence and the vehicle, being case property has not yet been exhibited.
7. When confronted regarding ownership documents of the petitioner , the learned counsel frankly conceded that there is an open transfer letter in his favour from the seller i.e. Abdul Wali Khan and vehicle has not been registered in his name in the relevant Excise & Taxation Of fice.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in "Amjad Ali Khan V. The State and others" (PLD 2020 SC 299), has graciously held that:- "The applicant while asserting his owners hip of the vehicle must specify in his application for superdari how he was deprived of the vehicle, how and when he found out that his vehicle was missing, and the legal proceedings initiated by him thereafter , if any. This becomes important in the light of section 109 of MVO which attracts criminal liability if one drives a vehicle without the consent of the owner . On the other hand, in order to oppose the release of vehicle on superdari , the prosecution has to prima facie show from the record that the owner knew that the offence was being or was to be, committed. It is underlined that it is during the trial that the prosecution has to prove that the owner knew that the of fence was being or was to be, committed."
9. It has also been laid down that:- "The first and the foremost condition is that the petitioner must be the "owner" of the vehicle. "Owner" is defined in section 2(24) of MVO to mean a person in whose name the motor vehicle is registered and includes the transferee. T ransferee must be duly registered under MVO." (emphasis added)
10. In the present case, the appellant described himself as owner of the vehicle but the same is registered in the name of one Jalil Ahmad. Any other docum ent except due registration cannot be termed as a valid document of title and it does not transfer ownership of a vehicle in terms of Motor V ehicle Ordinance.
11. The appellant will have an opportunity to present his case before the learned Trial Court by producing evidence to explore that he is lawful owner of the vehicle; he was neither the accused nor associated or relative of the accused or an individual having any nexus with the accused. Reliance is placed upon case law reported as Haroon Rasheed and another v . The State (2016 PCr .LJ 56 Lahore).
12. For what has been discussed above we find that the order of learned Judge Special Court, CNS, Islamabad is well reasoned and does not call for interference. Consequently , the instant criminal appeal being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed .