1. ' By this application the applicant has challenged the orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kotri in Criminal Revision Application No, 9/88 on 7-34989. Briefly the facts are that Jamshoro Police had found a Suzuki vehicle No, 334-342 and confiscated under section 550, Cr.P.C.
2. The respondent Aziz Gul approached the police and claimed the Suzuki and the police after verifying his documents submitted a report before the Mukhtiarkar and FCM, Kotri on 9-7-1988 and the Magistrate handed over the custody of the said vehicle to him on furnishing bond.
3. Subsequently the present applicant Atta Mohammad made an application under section 523, Cr.P.C. Whereupon the learned Magistrate passed an interim order for seizure of the Suzuki and keeping it at Jamshoro Police Station till 24-9-1988. A notice was given to the said Aziz Gul and then after recording evidence to determine the title of the parties the Magistrate passed an order on 15- 10-1988 whereby the said vehicle was handed over to the present applicant Atta Mohammad whereupon the present respondent Aziz Gul filed a revision application before the Additional Sessions Judge at Kotri who passed the impugned order setting aside the second order passed by the Mukhtiarkar passed on 15-104988 and maintained his first order dated 10-7-1988 and ordered the vehicle to be handed over to the present respondent Aziz Gul in terms of that order. This application has been filed challenging the said impugned order.
4. ' I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Nadeem Hussain Shah, learned counsel for applicant Atta Mohammad has submitted that the first order passed by the Mukhtiarkar amounts to an order passed under section 523(2), Cr.P.C. Which reads as under:-- "523. Procedure by Police upon seizure of property taken under section 51 or stolen.-- (1) The seizure by any police officer or property taken under section 51, or alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence, shall be forthwith reported to a Magistrate, who shall make such order as he thinks fit respecting the, disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or, if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.
(2) Procedure where owner of property seized unknown: If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit. If such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation."
5. ' According to the learned counsel this order is subject to section 524, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that second order passed by the Mukhtiarkar whereby the vehicle was given to the present applicant Atta Mohammad is an order against which an appeal could be filed under section 423, Cr.P.C. And, therefore, the revision application filed before the Additional Sessions Judge is not competent. He has referred to section 439(5), Cr.P.C. Which provides that where an appeal lies and no appeal has been filed, no proceedings by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have filed appeal. According to him the present revision application before the ASJ, Kotri is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that both the parties had documents showing the vehicle to belong to them under different registration number and it was not for the Mukhtiarkar to have passed the first order on 10-7-1988 giving vehicle to Aziz Gul merely on his own statement but he has contended that the second order passed on 15-10-1988 after having taking into consideration all the relevant facts and documents is the order passed properly by the Mukhtiarkar and that the A.S.J., Kotri should not have interfered with the said order and his order amounts to abuse of the process of Court. He has placed reliance on a number of cases reported in 1986 PCr.LJ 332, 1985 PCr.LJ 2409 and 1969 PCr.LJ 764, and a number of other cases in support of his contention that the application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Would be maintainable. As against this Mr. Imam Ali Memon, learned counsel for the respondent No, 1 has submitted that the present application is not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 439(4)(b), Cr.P.C. Which provides that nothing in section 439, Cr.P.C. Shall be deemed to authorise the High Court to entertain any proceedings in revision with respect to an order passed by the Sessions Judge under section 439-A. He has placed reliance on the cases reported in 1988 M LD 968 and also 1987 SCM R 1371. I have considered the submissions of the Advocates for the parties and also perused the documents placed on record.
6. No doubt the High Court is not to entertain any further proceedings by way of revision application against the order passed by a Sessions Court under section 439-A, Cr.P.C. But in the present case this is an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. And not an application under section 439 for revision of the order. On this point I agree with the contention of Mr. Nadeem Hussain Shah, learned counsel for the applicant that the High Court has an inherent jurisdiction to quash the orders passed by the lower Court even in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The point which requires consideration is that whether the Mukhtiarkar having passed the first order whereby he had given the possession of vehicle to the respondent Aziz Gul earlier could revise the said order by holding a subsequent inquiry and then hand over the said vehicle to the other party now the position as it stands is that both the parties have the documents of the ownership of the said vehicle showing different registration numbers and both the parties are claiming to be the owner of the said vehicle. The first order passed by the learned Mukhtiarkar on 10-7-1988 shows that the vehicle was handed over to Aziz Gul the respondent No, 1 in terms of the provisions of section 523, Cr.P.C. On the condition that he will not dispose of the said property within 6 months and on his furnishing personal bond. This order according to the learned Additional Sessions Judge is sufficient compliance with the provisions of section 523, Cr.PC. And this order could not be revised or reviewed by the Mukhtiarkar as there is no provision for review of an order in Cr.P.C. Nor a Mukhtiarkar is competent to revise his own order passed earlier. Mr. Shaukat Hussain Zubedi, learned AAG has contended that if the applicant was aggrieved by the first order of the Mukhtiarkar he should have either filed an appeal/revision against the said order to the higher forum or a civil suit for determination of his claim in a competent Civil Court. From the above discussion I am of the view that the second order passed by the Mukhtiarkar on 15-10-1988 is not competent in law and has been rightly set aside by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kotri. The parties who claim ownership of the said vehicle are at liberty to get their claim determined before any competent forum available to them under the Law. The present application is, therefore, dismissed.