Dr. KHURSHID IQBAL, J.- This consolidated judgment proposes to decide the writ petitions listed above, as a common question of law and fact is involved in all these petitions.
2. The instant petition is the outcome of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Swat at Khwaza Khela, dated 11.11.2021 whereby revision petition of respondent Nisar Ali Khan against the order dated 11.10.2021 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Khwaza Khela, was accepted and motorcar having Chassis No. GRS-1805002463, Model 2004-2005, having been seized by police in connection with Madd No. 38 dated 09.07.2021 u/s 523/550, Cr.P.C. of P.S Khurshid Khan Shaheed, was returned to him on superdari.
3. The connected W.P No. 417-M/2022 is emanating from the judgment dated 21.10.2021 rendered by the same Court accepting the revision petition of respondent Syed Wahab against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Khwaza Khela, dated 04.10.2021. Resultantly, the vehicle Datsun having Chassis No. LN-107-0012228, Model 1992 was handed over to respondent on superdari which had been seized by police in connection with daily -diary No. 17 dated 22.09.2021 u/s 523/550, Cr.P.C. of P.S Khurshid Khan Shaheed, District Swat.
4. Through W.P No. 418-M/2022, the State has challenged the judgment of the same Court dated 14.10.2021 whereby revision petition of respondent Wahid Ali Khan against the order of the learned Judicial magistrate, Khwaza Khela, was accepted and motorcar having Chassis No. SCP-90- 206861, Model 2006, having been taken into possession by police in relation with daily diary N. 10 dated 23.06.2021 u/s 523/550, Cr.P.C. of P.S Khurshid Khan Shaheed, was returned to him on superdari.
5. The last petition i.e W.P No. 419-M/2022 is of the same nature emanating from the judgment dated 09.12..2021 rendered by the same Court whereby the revision petition of respondent Shukar Hadi against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Khwaza Khela, dated 23.10.2021 was accepted and the subject vehicle non-custom paid (NCP) motorcar having Chassis No. CE106- 0079893, Model 1994 was handed over to respondent on superdari which had been seized by police in connection with daily diary No. 10 dated 10.08.2021 under Sections 523/550, Cr.P.C. of P.S Khurshid Khan Shaheed, District Swat.
6. Arguments heard and record perused.
7. The learned revisional court has returned the vehicles to the respondents primarily on the grounds that they are bona fide purchasers of the respective vehicles, and no adverse claims to ownership have been made against them. The Court further noted that the vehicles were not classified as stolen property and were no longer needed by the police for further investigation. The record in the present petition indicates that the subject motorcar was subjected to examination by the Forensic .Science Laboratory (FSL). A copy of the FSL report part of the record, which reveals that, following a chemical analysis, the chassis sheet piece was found to have been welded and refitted. The opinion of the expert, as divulged from his report, is as under: Welded and refitted chassis sheet piece measuring 12" X 4" (inch) bears the following number.
"GRS 180-5002463"
Based on the aforementioned report and the evidence gathered during the inquiry under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., a criminal case has been registered under FIR No. 1496 dated 21.08.2021 at Police Station Khurshid Khan Shaheed under Sections 419, 420, 468 86 471 PPC against the first seller of the vehicle, namely Ali Sultan. Similar FIRs have been registered concerning the welded and refitted chassis plates and deciphered chassis numbers of the vehicles involved in the connected petitions W.P. No. 418-M/2022 and W.P. No. 419-M/2022. Meanwhile, in W.P. No. 417-M/2022, the Datsun vehicle has been seized by the police based on its suspicious chassis number, and an inquiry is currently conducted. For deciding these petitions, wherein the State has challenged the judgments of the learned revisional Court regarding the return of the vehicles; the subject vehicles are case property of criminal cases registered against the initial sellers. The return of vehicles to their lawful owners or possessors in criminal cases is not alien to the judicial system of this country, provided that the vehicle is found to be legally fit for use under relevant laws. However, in the present cases, the criminal activity stems directly from the subject matter of the cases, the legal status of which has become questionable under Section 33 of the Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, which addresses alterations in motor vehicles. This provision emphasizes that any modification to a motor vehicle must be communicated to the relevant registration authority within 14 days from the date of alteration. Although alterations to the chassis plate or number may occur due to accidents, such matters must be reported to the concerned authority in accordance with Section 33 of the Ordinance. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present cases, the alterations to the chassis of the subject vehicles appear to be deliberate, therefore, the prosecution's version cannot be disregarded at this stage.
8. With regard to the respondents' claims as bona fide, purchasers of the subject vehicles, it is undisputed that these vehicles were taken from their possession and that they have submitted documents to support their titles. However, the presence of unauthorized alterations to the chassis numbers of these vehicles raises significant concerns. As such, the vehicles cannot simply be returned to the respondents solely on ,the basis of their status as bona fide purchasers. The records indicate that they did not exercise due diligence or care while purchasing the vehicles, which is critical in establishing their defense. This principle has been highlighted by the landmark judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled "Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Excise and Taxation Department, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and others Vs. Sarfraz Khan and another" (2020 SCMR 1410). In .a similar situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: No such exercise was undertaken. Respondent concedes that such alteration was not carried out by him but by the person from whom he has purchased the vehicle. The liability and responsibility vest on the person making such alteration in any manner whatsoever. If the Respondent has purchased the same without taking due care and complying with the requirements of law, he cannot claim to be a bona fide purchaser. Needless to say that he may, if so advised, claim damages from the person from whom he purchased the subject vehicle.
In light of the referred judgment, bona fide purchasers cannot claim legal protection if they fail to conduct proper inquiries regarding the legitimacy of the vehicle's legal status and any alterations that may have occurred. Considering, the unauthorized modification of the chassis numbers in the present cases, it becomes evident that the respondents' claims being bona fide purchasers are, weakened. Their failure to take the necessary precautions at the time of purchasing the vehicles precludes them from asserting an entitlement to their return, as their actions may be construed as neglecting the responsibilities associated with acquiring property of this nature.
9. In the present cases, the vehicles in question have been examined by the FSL, which has reported that the vehicles are having welded and refitted chassis plates, with some chassis numbers having been deciphered. These reports fundamentally compromise the legal status of these vehicles, making it highly questionable in terms of their legitimacy. The tampering of chassis numbers raises significant legal and ethical concerns. Allowing the use of vehicles with altered chassis numbers would essentially grant permission for the circulation of tampered and unauthorized vehicles on public roads. Such permission from the Court would not only challenge the integrity of the vehicle registration systems but also pose serious risks to public safety. The chassis number serves as a unique identifier for a vehicle, providing crucial information regarding its ownership, history, and compliance with regulatory standards. When these identifiers are altered or tampered with, it becomes nearly impossible to trace the vehicle's origin, assess its legal standing, or ensure that it meets safety and environmental standards. Furthermore, permitting the use of such vehicles could inadvertently encourage illicit activities, such as theft, fraud, and trafficking, effectively issuing a de facto license for the proliferation of illegal vehicles. Thus, the continued use of vehicles with tampered chassis numbers cannot be sanctioned, as it would set a dangerous precedent that would jeopardize the legal framework governing motor vehicles. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case titled "Muhammad Zada Vs. The State and 2 others" (2021 YLR 1415), wherein it has been held that: Thus, the question arises whether such vehicles which are having tampered, re-stamped, welded or refitted chassis plates can be allowed to ply on the roads? The answer is obviously 'no', since the law on the subject does not permit the same, therefore, in firm view of this Court; the arguments advanced by learned A.A.G in this regard were carrying substantial weight.
Further reliance is placed on "Ali Bahadar Vs. Toyota Indus Motor Company Ltd. and others" (2019 YLR 622, Peshawar).
10. In light of the foregoing discussion, the writ petitions are allowed, the impugned judgments are set aside and the vehicles that have already been returned to the respondents shall be retrieved from their possession without delay.