1. ' ANWARUL HAQ, J.-- The dispute in this case concerns a 1966 model Mercedes Benz car bearing No, LEG 1615. According to the averments made in the petition, the car was purchased by the petitioner in May 1972 from Mr. Babar Farooq Khan, Manager, Commerce Bank Ltd., Sialkot. Being dissatisfied with the performance of the car, the petitioner entrusted the same on 16-6-1972 to one Muhammad Javed, a car dealer, for having the car repaired and arranging its sale. Having become suspicious of the activities of the said Muhammad Javed, and apparently not having received the car or any offers of sale from him, the petitioner reported the matter at Hafizabad Police Station on 13-10-1972, and a case was registered against Muhammad Javed under sections 406 and 420, P.P.C.
2. ' On 19-10-1972, the car was seized by the Police from the possession of one Ghulam Nabi Lone of Gulberg, Lahore, who was said to be holding it on behalf of respondent No,1, Javed Akbar. The car was found to have teen registered in the name of this respondent since July, 1972.
3. ' The petitioner as well as respondent No,1 applied to the trial Coin it for the custody of the car during the pendency of the case. On 24th October, 1972 the car was given to the petitioner on Superdari. It was discovered that the accused Muhammad Javed had absconded. The order of Superdari in favour of the petitioner was challenged by the respondent in the Sessions Court as well as in the High Court, but his revision petitions were dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent Javed Akbar filed a civil suit for a declaration of his ownership of the car, and the same is pending.
4. ' On the 9th of March, 1974, the present petitioner made an application to the trial Court praying that he may be allowed to sell the car. He offered to furnish a guarantee or security in this behalf.
5. This application was allowed by the learned Magistrate, without requiring the petitioner to furnish any guarantee or security for depositing the sale price. The only condition imposed on the petitioner was that whenever required, he would disclose the identity of the purchaser of the car, and if the said purchaser was to sell the car to someone else, then the name of the second vendee would also be disclosed to the Court.
6. ' On obtaining this order from the trial Court, the petitioner is said to have sold this car to one Major Anis Akram Beg, who was accordingly brought on the record of the High Court as a respondent by its order dated the 19th of June, 1974.
7. ' Aggrieved by this order of the learned Magistrate the respondent Javed Akbar filed a revision petition in the High Court which has been accepted by a learned Judge on the 20th of February, 1975. He has held that the order made by the learned Magistrate is not in conformity with the provisions of section 516-A, Cr.P.C., which governs the custody of the crime property during the pendency of the trial. The learned Judge has expressed the view that the property could be sold only if it was subject to speedy or natural decay, but no such finding was recorded by the learned Magistrate before permitting its sale nor was the present petitioner required to furnish any security for the deposit or refund of the sale price.
8. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against this order of the High Court on the ground that even though the order of the Magistrate does not specifically declare that the property was subject to speedy or natural decay, it is clear that being a 1966 model car, it was subject to natural decay and the trial Court was, therefore, justified in ordering its sale during the pendency of the criminal trial, which was being delayed due to the abscondence of the accused Muhammad Javed. It is next contended that the failure of the trial Court to require the present petitioner to furnish security or guarantee for the sale price would not render the order of sale invalid, as the omission could easily be rectified by the High Court in revision. According to the learned counsel, this omission would amount to a mere irregularity.
9. ' We regret we cannot accept the reasons. We have already referred to the application made by the petitioner on the 9th of March, 1974. We find that in that application, there was no mention at all of the car being subject to natural decay; on the contrary, the only reason given for permission to sell the car was that there was no other claimant for the same. This was obviously an incorrect statement as the respondent Javed Akbar was very much in the field, and had unsuccessfully applied for the Superdari of the car. He had also filed a civil suit to obtain a declaration of his ownership. The application made by the petitioner did not, therefore, fall within the ambit of section 516-A of the Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate simply accepted the application, without applying his mind to the question whether it was covered by the provisions of section 516-A of the Code. As neither the application made by the petitioner nor the order made thereon by the learned Magistrate, disclosed the presence of factors or circumstances which could bring the matter within the ambit of section 516-A the High Court was right in setting aside the said order in revision.
10. ' On this view of the matter, it is not necessary to examine the further contention that the omission of the learned Magistrate to require the petitioner to furnish security or guarantee in respect of the sale price of the car would amount to a mere irregularity. The order having been found to be unsustainable in terms of section 516-A of the Code, it could not be validated by the addition of any such condition by the learned Magistrate or even by the High Court while acting in revision.
11. ' For the foregoing reasons we see no justification to interfere. The petition accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed. r.