HAMID ALI MIRZA, J. - This is an application under Section 561-A Cr.P.C, directed against the orders dated 16.7.1995 and 12.2.1996 passed by ACM-I, Karachi-East and Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-East, respectively, in a case Raja Abdul Majeed v. The State and another whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-East dismissed the revision application filed by the applicant and maintained the order dated 16.7.1995 of ACM-I, Karachi-East.
2. Brief facts of the case are that one Toyota Land Cruiser Jeep was stolen for which one Abdul Wahid of Deewan Sons lodged report No. 622/92 at P.S. Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi. The above vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 2 Adamjee Insurance. The owner of the vehicle registration No. BC 2236 filed claim with the Insurance Company respondent No. 2 who paid for the same and obtained a letter of subrogation from the owner Deewan Sons. One vehicle Toyota Land Cruiser was secured by police over which the present applicant and the respondent No. 2 laid claim and such application was made by respondent No. 2 before ACM-I, Karachi-East who passed the order dated 16.7.1995 which runs: "The vehicle bearing registration No. BC 2236 may be returned to its real registered owner applicant after due verification and identification on superdiginama to the extent value of the vehicle ' if it is not. Required for investigation in any, crime subject to the conditions that he will produce the same before police or Court as and when required and he will not dispose of or transfer in any manner nor change its colour, Engine number or registration number without prior permission of this Court.
The superdiginama and bond may be submitted to this Court for record." .
The applicant filed revision against the said order which was disposed of by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-East maintaining the order of ACM-I East. The operative part of the order of the Additional Sessions Judge runs: "It is admitted fact that the vehicle is very valuable, the insurance cost of the vehicle was Rs.
12,00,000/- which was paid by the Insurance Company to the Insurer thus Insurance Company has stepped in the shoes of the owner. On the basis of right of subrogation. The order of the ACM-I Karachi-East is very much clear and needs no reversion Or set aside. I therefore maintain the order of the learned ACM. As the respondent is an invisible entity therefore they can get possession of the vehicle through their duly appointed person-hut they will not sell, transfer the vehicle but will maintain it as a prudent man takes good care of his own vehicle till applicant succeeds in his civil litigation if he desires to file. However, the respondent has furnished a bond to the tune of the Insurance amount in this Court, therefore, Nazarat to act upon my advice given in the order."
3. Contention of the learned counsel for applicant is that original numbers of the said vehicle have been tampered with consequently the said vehicle belonged to the applicant and not to the respondent No. 2 who has been invested with such right by way of letter of subrogation by the original, owner of vehicle BC 2236. His submission is that the said vehicle which has been recovered bears Engine No. 0006894, chassis No. HDJ-81-0002951, therefore, the same may be returned to him.
4. Contention of learned counsel for respondent No. 2 is that both Courts below have gone through the relevant documents and report of the forensic experts who in his report has stated that the vehicle so recovered bore registration No. BC 2236 and its original chassis No. HDJ-81-0003949 which vehicle in fact belonged to the respondent No. 2 as held by the two Courts below therefore the impugned orders passed are legal and call for no interference in this Misc. Criminal Application.
He further contends that present application under Section 561-A Cr.P.C, is not maintainable and competent as the only one revision could be maintainable and the applicant could not in the garb of inherent jurisdiction of this Court seek remedy of second revision. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon Syed' Munawar Ali Zaidi v. Mst. Qaiser Jahan and another (PLD 1992 Karachi 104) wherein learned Judge in chambers has observed that High Court will not substitute its own appraisement of evidence for that of the lower Courts, so long as there is legal evidence to sustain such findings and further provisions of Section 561-A Cr.P.C, cannot be exercised when the order by the Court of revision is based on proper appraisement of- evidence and further that such powers could be exercised for correcting injustice and not mere irregularity or illegality; (ii) The said decision was also maintained in a reported case PLD 1992 S.C. 406 wherein Supreme Court observed that High Court could only interfere when it is satisfied that in the appreciation of evidence by the lower Courts gross miscarriage of justice had taken place amounting to abuse of the process of the Courts or interference Was necessary to secure the ends of justice; and (iii)
Sarwar Ali -v. State (1983 P.Cr.L.J. 329) wherein learned Judge in chambers has observed that High Court is not competent to entertain any proceedings in revision with respect to order made by Sessions Judge under Section 439-A entertaining such petition under Section 561-A in the circumstances would amount to circumventing provisions of Section 439(4) Cr.P.C.
5. In view of the facts and case law, nothing has been pointed out that there has been miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of law or further that there has been any illegality with the impugned order warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Rights if any of the applicant have been safeguarded in the impugned order of Additional Sessions Judge by directing that the said vehicle would not be disposed of and would be kept in good condition till the applicant's rights in respect of said vehicle are settled/decided from the Civil Court having jurisdiction in the matter.
The application has no merit, consequently the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.