' The material facts culminating into this application filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Briefly, are that on 9-3-1992 the respondent No,1 lodged F.I.R. At Model Colony Police Station being Crime No,15 of 1992 alleging therein that 5 or 6 persons gave him beating and they also tried to remove his Taxi Car Non-4688 by force. A case under section 147/148/323, P.P.C. Was registered and during the course of investigation the said taxi car was seized by the police. The applicant then made an application to A.C.M. IX (East) Karachi, for the release of car to him on Superdigi. The learned Magistrate called the report from concerned police from which it transpired that the respondent No,1 has also a claim over this taxi car. Consequently a notice was issued to respondent No,1 and after hearing both the parties the learned Magistrate passed an order on 5-5-1992, the operative part of which reads as follows:-- "The vehicle is thus disputed between Messrs Ghulam Rasool and Abdul Latif so far its ownership/transfer is concerned. The matter being of civil nature, I order that the parties to get the issue decided from the competent Civil Court."
2. Both the parties, viz., the applicant and respondent No,1 challenged this order before Sessions Judge (East) Karachi, by filing separate revision applications, which were disposed of by a consolidated order passed on 8-7-1992 in the following terms:-- "Ordinarily trial Court is required to give temporary custody to a person who was last in possession unless special circumstances which may warrant a different course. Passing order of interim custody is a tentative order pending conclusion of the enquiry and the trial. As per F.I.R. It is clear that the taxi was being snatched away but due to arrival of police it could not be done. Under such circumstances the taxi should be handed over to the person who was in possession of the same. In case, the parties dispute over the ownership the forum of civil Court is open to them. The order of the learned lower Court refusing to hand over custody of the taxi to any of the parties is set aside, and Criminal Revision No,20 of 1992 is allowed. It is hereby ordered that the interim custody of the taxi may be given to applicant Abdul Latif on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,60,000 (Rupees sixty thousand only) with direction to produce the same as and when required by the trial Court."
3. It is in these circumstances that the applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
4. I have heard Mr. Umar Farooq Khan, learned counsel for applicant, Mr. Sardar Muhammad Ishaque, learned counsel for respondent No,1 and Mr. Ali Nawaz Dahraj, learned counsel for. State.
5. It is contended on behalf of applicant that a real owner cannot be deprived of the custody of taxi car as against the person who was claiming its ownership on the basis of forged documents. The case of Qaiser Shafeeq Vohra v. State reported in 1991 MLD 2590, decided by this Court appears to lend some support to this contention. The facts of the reported case are, however, distinguishable and in that case the real owner was preferred as against the purchaser of the car from a thief. In the present case the respondent No,1 claims to have purchased this taxi car from the applicant himself and he has in his possession the transfer documents. Admittedly the taxi car was seized by the police from his possession after an attempt was made by 5 or 6 persons to remove it forcibly.
In such a situation the rule laid down in Fazal Hussain v. The State and 2 others reported in 1976 P Cr. L J 747, and M. Salim Khan v. The State and 3 others reported in 1991 P Cr. L J 285 is fully attracted to the facts of the present case.
6. Having regard to the above factual and legal position I do not feel inclined to differ from the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge (East) Karachi. The result is that the application made by the applicant under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is dismissed.