' AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is an appeal with the leave of this Court against the judgment dated 8-4- 1990 passed by a learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No,20/Q/90, filed by respondent No,1 against the order of Supardari dated 15-2-1989 passed by the Magistrate, First Class, Lahore, and the judgment dated 29-11-1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, maintaining the above order while dismissing respondent No,1's revision petition, allowing the same by setting aside the above order and judgment. The operative portion of the impugned judgment reads as follows:-- "10. The ends of justice require that the car may not be used by the respondents who have prima facie no title thereto. It is a thing open to wear and tear. It is, therefore, ordered to be kept with Sanara Motors in accordance with the principle laid down in PLD 1981 Lah. 588, at the expense of the parties to be equally contributed for a period of six months from today, during which time the parties would get their title cleared, if they desire, from a competent civil Court. If there is any need for further extension of this period, the order from the Court would be obtained in due course. The petition is thus disposed of."
Leave to appeal was granted to consider the question, whether the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Could legally set aside the order of the Magistrate and affirmed on revision by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, allowing Supardari of the car to the party from whom it was recovered.
2. The brief facts are that respondent No,1 lodged F.I.R. No, 190 on 6-6-1988 at the Police Station Gulberg, Lahore, under section 406/420 P.P.C., alleging therein that Suzuki Car No, LHV-2790 was sold to appellant No,1 who had accompanied one Suhail Ahmad Chaudhry against the two cheques dated 5-2-1988 and 15-2-1988 which were dishonoured. It seems that apppellant No,1's husband, appellant No,2 also lodged F.I.R. No, 225 of 1988, averring therein that he had gone blind in an accident and his wife-appellant No,1 was running a Press known as Kukoo Printers where said Suhail Ahmad Chaudhry was working as their Manager, in whom they had confidence so much so that blank Cheques had been signed by appellant No,1 and handed over to him for utilization in the business. It was also alleged that he committed fraud on appellant No,1 inasmuch as that after the appellants retruned from England, they found that their two previous cars were not there but two cars including the car in dispute were at their premises. They were allegedly informed by their above Manager that the previous cars being of not good colour had been sold away and in their place, the above two cars were purchased. It was further averred that when the accounts were asked from the said Suhail Ahmad Chaudhry, had disappeared. On the basis of above F.I.R.
Appellant No,1 obtained the above order of Supardari dated 15-2-1989 from the Magistrate, First Class, Lahore, against which respondent No,1 filed a Criminal Revision, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Both the Courts were of the view that since the car was recovered from appellant No,1, she was entitled to receive the possession of the same under Supardari. Against the above order/judgment, respondent No,1 filed aforesaid Criminal Miscellaneous under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., which was allowed in the above terms. The learned Judge in Chamber inter alia recorded the following reasons:-- "I may only prima facie observe that though a bargain was struck and the car delivered to the respondents but on the condition that the cheques would be honoured. Not a single penny having been passed on as consideration to the petitioner, it cannot be said that any title had passd to Mrs. Tauqeer Jehan. It is to be noted that she signed the cheques which were filed by somebody else and have been dishonoured. If she having, so much confidence in his agent, who has betrayed the same, then she herself is to suffer for it and not the third party."
' Against the above judgment of the High Court, the appellants filed petition for leave to appeal, which was granted to consider the above question.
3. In support of the above appeal, Mr. Abdul Manan, learned ASC appearing for the appellants, has vehemently urged that the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
Could not have interfered with the order passed by the learned Magistrate under section 523, Cr.P.C. And maintained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as the above provisions could not have been pressed into service. In support of the above submission, he has relied upon the case of Fazal Karim v. The State and another (1986 SCMR 483) and the case of Malik Muhamamd Rafique v.
Tehseen Qureshi (1985 SCMR 1539 (1)).
4. In the above first case, this Court while construing section 561-A, Cr.P.C., inter alia observed that the same neither is alternate relief nor is additional relief granting provision but is to be invoked only in the interest of justice so as to seek redress of grievance for which no other procedure is available; whereas in the above second case, this Court declined a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, whereby the Supardari of a car during the pendency of criminal proceedings had been ordered to be given over to respondent No,1 in the said petition for leave to appeal.
' On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Yaqoob Sindhu, learned ASC has referred to a later authority of this Court in the case of Muhammad Shafique and others v. Abdul Hayee and others (1987 SCMR 1371), in which this Court has analysed the above provision of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. As follows:-- "The jurisdictional requirements for the exercise of powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Are--
(i) To give effect to any order under the Criminal Procedure Code.
(ii) To prevent abuse of process of any Court.
(iii) To secure the ends of justice. Such a power cannot be exercised against the express language of the statute and it only preserves what is possessed or is inherent in the Court itself. The revisional power certainly goes beyond in so far as the propriety as is distinguished from the mere legality can also be examined therein. The powers possessed by the Courts under section 435/439, Cr.P.C.
Do not impinge, curtail, or limit in any manner whatsoever the powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C."
5. We would not like to express our views on the merits of the present case as the matter is still sub judice. However, it will suffice to observe that the learned Judge in Chambei has given cogent reasons for passing an order under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Reproduced hereinabove. The operative part of the impugned judgment indicates that it is a fair order which has taken care of the interests of both the parties. We are, therefore, of the view that the conditions referred to in the case of Malik Muhammad Rafique v. Tehseen Qureshi (supra) were present in the present case justifying the exercise of jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. We would, therefore, dismiss the above appeal.
' However, we may observe that it will be open to the parties to apply jointly to the Court below for getting the car in dispute sold and for getting its sale proceeds invested in the Khas Deposit Certificates or in some other Government/Bank's Scheme subject to the condition that the person who would be held to be entitled to the car, would be entitled to the sale proceeds of the car and the profit accrued thereon.