Mian Faiz Ahmad Khan has filed this 'criminal revision against (i) the State (ii) Sayed Bashir Hussain Shah, Managing Director, Sadaat Transport Company Ltd:, Madina (Gujrat), for revision of the order passed on the 5th February 1970, by Mr. Akhtar Ali Monga, Magistrate 1st Class, Kharian, directing that Bus No. SA 1643 be made over, on Sapurdari, to Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Chairman, Town Committee, Dinga.
2. The facts leading to the institution of the revisions petition may be briefly stated as follows: On the 4th February 1970, the Kharian Cantt. Police seized Bus No. SA 1643 for the reason that the registration book was not on the vehicle. On the 5th February 1970, Mirza Habib Beg applied to Mr. Akhtar Ali Monga, Magistrate 1st Class, Kharian, for the delivery of the aforesaid bus on Sapurdari.
He made this application, in his, capacity as "General Manager, Faiz Bus Service, Dinga." The Magistrate allowed the petition on the condition that Mirza Habib Beg put in security in the sum of Rs. 50,000. Mirza Habib Beg put 'in the requisite security and obtained the custody of the bus. The same day (5-2-1970), after some time, Syed Bashir Hussain Shah submitted an application to the said Magistrate alleging that the Commissioner, Rawalpindi, (Chairman, Regional Transport Authority) bad decided that the said bus belonged to Sadaat Transport Company Ltd., and, therefore, requested that the bus be recovered and be delivered to him on Sapurdari, then learned Magistrate passed the following order "The vehicle had been given on Sapurdari on mis-statement of facts by the applicant. This Sapurdari is hereby cancelled. The vehicle shall be impounded immediately--------------------- ---------------------------------------"
On the 10th February 1970, Syed Bashir Hussain Shah submitted another application alleging that Mirza Habib Beg had made the bus scarce. The same day, he made another application requesting the Magistrate to deliver the said bus to 'Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Chairman, Town Committee, Dinga. The learned Magistrate recorded the statements, of Syed Bashir Hussain Shah and of Ch. Muhammad Aslam and passed the following order---- "---..Bus No. SA 1643 may now be given to Ch. Muhammad Aslam on Sapurdari for Rs. 50,000."
3. Mian Faiz Ahmad felt aggrieved and filed Revision Petition No. 141 of 1970, to have the second order dated the 5th February 1970, set aside. He contended that the second order amounted to a revision of the first order passed under section 523, Cr. P. C. Which the Magistrate was not competent to do. He further contended that the impugned order had been issued without notice to him.
4. A notice was issued to the respondents. The original file pending in the Court of the learned Magistrate was also summoned. The statements of Mirza Habib Beg, Mian Faiz Ahmad and Ch. Muhammad Aslam were recorded.
5. Originally, the Magistrate entrusted the bus to Mirza Habib Beg on his furnishing security in the sum of Rs. 50,000. The same day Syed Bashir Hussain Shah made an application. The learned Magistrate, without issuing any notice to Mirza Habib Beg, cancelled the previous order and directed that the bus be taken into custody. On the 10th February 1970, the learned Magistrate ordered that the bus be entrusted to Ch. Muhammad Aslam. The statements of the parties leave - no room for doubt that throughout the bus continued to be in possession of Mirza Habib Beg or of his employer, Mian Faiz Ahmad; subsequent to it, the bus was never taken in possession by the police, or the Court, or Ch. Muhammad Aslam. The first order entrusting the bus to Mirza Habib Beg was made in pursuance of section 523, Cr. P. C. The Magistrate cancelled the order without notice to Mirza Habib Beg. This order has been questioned by Mian Faiz Ahmad on the two grounds mentioned above. The Magistrate, having made the order in favour of Mirza Habib Beg, could not review or revise his order, section 369, Cr. P. C. Being a bar. In this connection reference may be made to the case Ghulam Ali v. Emperor (A 1 R 1945 Lah. 47). Further, the impugned order was passed without notice to Mirza Habib Beg and without affording him an opportunity being heard. It was all the more necessary when on the application made by Bashir Hussain Shah, the Magistrate was of the view that the order in favour of Mirza Habib Beg had been passed on mis-statement of facts. Mirza Habib Beg had the right to be heard in support of the order passed in his favour and to explain, that he secured the order by making correct statement of facts and further that the averments made by Syed Bashir Hussain Shah were untrue. The subsequent order dated the 5th February 1970, is therefore, revisable and is hereby set aside.
6. It is needless to add that the subsequent order dated the 10th February 1970, entrusting the bus to Ch. Muhammad Aslam, as Sapurdar, will fall as a superstructure. Ch. Muhammad Aslam conceded before me that he did not obtain the custody of the bus.
7. Lastly, Syed Bashir Hussain Shah contended that Mirza Habib Beg was a pennyless person and that it was unsafe to keep the bus (worth Rs. 50,000) in his custody.
8. Mirza Habib Beg, Mian Faiz Ahmad, Syed Bashir Hussain Shah and Ch. Muhammad Aslam agreed before me that the bus be taken away from Mirza Habib Beg and be formally entrusted to Mian Faiz Ahmad. In accordance with this arrangement, Mirza Habib Beg is discharged from his bond. Mian Faiz Ahmad conceded that the bus was in his own custody and he undertook to produce the bus as and when required by the Court. In pursuance of this agreement, Mian Faiz Ahmed has put in his bond, which is hereby accepted.
9. Mian Faiz Ahmad filed a writ petition in order to challenge the order passed by the Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, on the 4th February 1970. The writ petition was dismissed. Mian Faiz Ahmad filed a review petition. The review petition is still pending. Syed Bashir Hussain Shah shall be at liberty to apply to a proper forum for delivery of the bus to him.