1. ' It would be relevant to give facts of the case in brief before adverting to the contentions of the learned counsel. One Dr. Farhat Abbas, M.L.O. Civil Hospital, Karachi, informed Police Station Garden Karachi that an unknown person was brought in Civil Hospital who had died in a road accident having been hit by a vehicle "Niaz Coach", having registration No,PE-3385. The information was recorded in Roznamcha Entry No, 51 at 19-45 hours on 12-12-1994. The S.I.P. Arif then reached the Civil Hospital and after preparation of inquest report under section 174, Cr.P.C. The dead body was handed over to Dr. Akhlaq-un-Nabi Khan real brother of the deceased. The cause of death was taken from the report of the M.L.O. Dr. Farhat Abbas and on the basis of statement of eye-witnesses Jamshed who had brought the dead body to the Civil Hospital. The vehicle in question was taken into custody and an offence under section 320, P.P.C. As amended was registered. It is stated that the vehicle in question was being driven rashly and negligently while going from Mazar Quaid-e- Azam to Boulton Market, Karachi, and because of that the deceased Ashfaq-un-Nabi who was crossing the road, was hit and died as a result thereof. The driver of the vehicle, however, fled from the Wardat.
2. ' An application under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. Was moved by one Yousuf Khan, the applicant herein claiming to be the owner of the vehicle. Such application came up for hearing before incharge Sessions Judge, Karachi (South) on 3-1-1995 when the application was allowed after the D.P.P.
3. Recorded no objection to the grant of application. The learned incharge Judge while allowing the application directed S.H.O. Police Station Garden to return Mazda Coach No,PE-3385 to the applicant on Superdginama in the sum of A Rs,5,00,000 on proper receipt and verification of documents with further direction to the applicant to produce the said vehicle as and when required by the Court.
4. ' After the above order was passed, the wife of deceased Ashfaq-unNabi moved an application, dated 5-1-1995 before the Sessions Judge, Karachi (South) in which she stated that the deceased was her husband and employed with S.I.D.C.O. Centre, Karachi, and was the only bread earner of the family which consisted of herself and her two unmarried daughters. She prayed for grant of compensation. The learned Sessions Judge, Karachi (South) by order, dated 11-1-1995 re-called the order, dated 3-1-1995 passed by the incharge Sessions Judge and in the result dismissed the application for restoration of the vehicle to the owner. The power to call the order passed by another learned Judge is purportedly exercised under section 21 of the General Clauses Act. The order of sessions Judge, Karachi (South) is challenged through this revision application.
5. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is contended by the applicant's learned Advocate that the vehicle in question is not the case property and that an order passed by another Judge having similar powers could not be reviewed in exercise of powers under section 21 of the General Clauses Act. In support of this contention learned Advocate has referred to the case of Dewan Jairamdas and others v. Syed Niamat Ali and others 1983 SCM R 330.
6. ' Mr. S. Amjad Ali Shah, learned AA.-G. Has opposed this application and has argued that the Sessions Judge, Karachi (South) has rightly recalled the order earlier passed by the incharge Sessions Judge, which he could do under section 21 of the General Clauses Act. It is also argued that the driver of the Mazda Coach is still absconding and if the vehicle is released to the applicant, the widow and the heirs of the deceased would be deprived of compensation which now they are entitled to get under law.
7. ' I have considered the above contentions and gone through the two orders, the first passed by the Incharge Sessions Judge on 3-1-1995 and the second passed by the Sessions Judge, Karachi (South) on 11-1-1995 which is now impugned in this revision application. In view of the case-law cited by the applicant's learned Advocate, I am of the considered view that the order earlier passed by the Incharge Sessions Judge directing release of the vehicle on Superdginama could not have been reviewed or recalled by the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi (South) in the purported exercise of his jurisdiction under section 21 of the General Clauses Act. The reason for the same is that first order passed by the Incharge Sessions Judge was reviewed by another Judge which he could not do under section 21 of the said Act. In the result this revision application is ,allowed, the order passed by the Incharge Sessions Judge, dated 3-1-1995 is restored. The applicant shall, however, not dispose of the vehicle in question without seeking permission from the Court having jurisdiction in the matter nor shall he take away the vehicle outside Karachi.
8. Revision .