1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-The connection with the theft of a tractor, a first information report was registered by the petitioner Khan Muhammad on 16-1-1972 against the respondent Mohammad Abdullah and others. During, the investigation of the case, both the parties applied to the Assistant Commissioner, Okara, for receiving the tractor on superdari, hot the applications were dismissed by the learned Magistrate on 16-2-1972. There--upon; the parties filed revision petitions which were disposed of by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court by his order dated the 10th of April 1972, directing that during the pendency of the case, the tractor be entrusted to the respondent, Mohammad Abdullah. That order was challenged by the present petitioner in this Court by means of Criminal Petition No. 90 of 1972, but leave was refused on the 28th of June 1972.
2. Special leave to appeal is now sought from this latest order of the, High Court on the ground that the respondent is abusing his position us a superdar by not producing the tractor at the hearing of the case, the result that the prosecution evidence cannot be recorded. It is submitted that the case had to be adjourned at least on three occasions, viz, the 20th of March 1973, the 11th of April 1973, and the 17th of April 1973 on this account. It is contended that by his conduct the respondent had disentitled himself to retain the custody of the stolen tractor.
3. Mr. M. A. Bajwa, advocate, who has entered a caveat for the respondentsubmits that the case arising out of the F. I. R. Having been sent up for cancellation, the superdari made in that case is no longer operative, and, therefore, the respondent is under no obligation to produce the tractor during the trial of the complaint case initiated by the petitioner.
4. There is no merit in the position taken up on behalf of the respondent. It is clear that the case property having been entrusted to the respondent, he continues to be under an obligation to produce it in Court as and which required, until such time as a proper order is made by the Court concerned in terms of section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the final disposal of the tractor. The mere fact that the police has recommended', the cancellation of the case registered on the 16th of January 1972 does not mean that the superdari made in favour of the respondent has automatically come to an end, and he has become entitled to retain the tractor as of right. It is clear that the respondent continue to be under a legal obligation to produce the tractor in the trial Court as and when required to do so.
5. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with these observations.