' Petitioner Malik Saifullah son of Malik Muhammad Zafar claimed to be the owner of his vehicle Pajero which was stolen. Finally Ch. Rehmat All S.I. C.I.A. Staff the only respondent in this case went to Dera Ismail Khan and on 5-2-1992 took the vehicle into possession. The stolen property was produced before the Illaqa. Magistrate Car Lifting Staff, Misri Shah, Lahore and the present petitioner filed an application on 8-2-1992 for taking the car on Spurdari. He undertook to produce the car whenever demanded. On the same day the respondent made the report and car was handed over to the petitioner on Spurdari.
2. It appears that Sessions Judge, Dera Ismail Khan served a notice on the respondent to produce the aforementioned vehicle before him in connection with Misc. Application No.49 of 1992 filed under section 523/550 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is in these circumstances the petitioner has filed this writ petition for a direction to respondent No.1 not to take the possession of the car from the petitioner. The petitioner prays that the action of the respondent in demanding the car may be declared to be without jurisdiction.
3. Reliance is placed on Haji Ghulam Kadir v. The State 1974 PCr.LJ 228 to show that District Judge, Dera Ismail Khan has no jurisdiction to deal with the car. This was a case under sections 523 and 520 of the Cr.P.C. The question arose as to what is the remedy if any a party is aggrieved by an order under section 523, Cr.P.C. It is observed that under section 520 Cr.P.C. a Court of appeal, confirmation, reference or revision has got jurisdiction only in regard to such order as having been passed under section 517, 518 or 519 Cr.P.C. According to the facts the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was one under section 523, Cr.P.C. and it was held that the same was not subject to jurisdiction under section 520, Cr.P.C. The precise submission of the learned counsel is that in the present case the Sessions Judge, Dera Ismail Khan has no power to deal with the stolen property under section 520, Cr.P.C. because the order has been passed under section 523, Cr.P.C,
4. Reliance is also placed on Mst. Mumtaz Akhtar v. The State and others 1977 PCr.LJ 168 where it has been held that if an order is passed under section 523 at investigation stage it is not appealable under section 520, Cr.P.C. In both the cases the law laid down is that if an order is passed under section 523, Cr.P.C. the same is not appealable under section 520, Cr.P.C. The facts of the present case are different from the aforementioned two cases. In any case Dera Ismail Khan is in a different Province, no relief can be granted by this Court in respect of proceedings pending before the Sessions Judge, Dera Ismail Khan.
5. The petitioner was given the Spurdari of the car under section 523, Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate with an undertaking that the same will be produced whenever demanded. No one has questioned this order of Spurdari dated 8-2-1992 in a higher forum in accordance with law. In case the respondent wants to take the car from the custody of the petitioner, he cannot forcibly do so.
The best course for him is to apply to the learned Magistrate, Lahore, who will pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
' In view of above the writ petition is partly accepted to the extent that the respondent has no authority to forcibly take the car from the petitioner.