' The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the laws of the United States of America and is carrying on its business activities in Pakistan. The petitioner Bank, it is alleged, offers an array of financial facilities including car financing facility. The said facility is under Modarba mode of financing, whereby a vehicle is purchased on the request of a customer and the same is sells out to him at an agreed deferred price. The said vehicle, in turn, is hypothecated with the Bank and in this manner the Bank retains its lien on it.
2. On 29-4-1998 one such agreement was entered into with one Naghman Siddique whereby vehicle i,e, Suzuki Khyber bearing Engine No,A-139331 and Chassis No,451627, was purchased by the Bank and sold to him. The said vehicle was registered under Registration No,LXG-1263. The total finance amount in the instant facility was to the tune of Rs,2,66,000 and the entire liability was to the tune of Rs,6,18,288. Nughman Siddique paid a sum of Rs,1,21,004 and the balance sale price was agreed to be paid in installments spreading over a period of 72 months. On 2-5-1998 Nughman Siddique expressed his inability to continue with the facility and desired its termination. He also authorized the bank to repossess the said vehicle. Accordingly agreement was terminated and proceedings for repossession of vehicle were initiated. During the said proceedings it came to the notice of Bank i,e, petitioner that a case under section 381/406, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No,196 of 1998 has been registered against Nughman Siddique at Police Station Gujar Singh.
' Lahore. It also transpired that the car described above has been taken into custody by the police.
3. Through the instant petition the action of polee regarding taking into possession of said car has been sought to be declare,: without lawful authority with a further direction that respondents be ordered v, hand over the possession of that car to the petitioner and they be restrained from dealing with the car in any manner.
4. Comments of respondent No,3 were called and the same have been brought on record. It is asserted by respondent No,3 that car was taken in possession from the accused in case F.I.R. No,196 of 1998 under section 381/406, P.P.C. Registered against Mr. Nughman Siddique at the instance of complainant of that case. It is further stated that during investigation of that case it was stated by the accused that he had purchased the car with the amount embezzled by him. It was further asserted that respondent has no objection if the car is taken as Supercar by the petitioner, as the same has attained the character of being case property.
5. A perusal of record shows that the car financing facility was extended to Nughman Siddique culminating into an agreement, dated 29-4-1998. The said contract was cancelled by Nughman Siddique vide letter, dated 2-5-1998. The instant F.I.R. Under section 381/406, P.P.C. Has been registered on 12-5-1998 in respect of an occurrence which has taken place on 11-5-1998. The instant F.I.R. Pertains to embezzlement of Rs,17,50,000 on the part of Nughman Siddique. Even if it is assumed that Mr. Nughman Siddique stands involved in the commission of this offence, is there any evidence with the respondents to show that he acquired this car out of the amount alleged to have been embezzled by him. There is no evidence except the statement of accused that he had purchased the said car out of the said amount. But no value can be attached to such statement.
Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it can be held that accused invested money in purchasing car out of the amount, alleged to have been misappropriated by him. Mere saying of accused that he purchased the car out of that amount does not carry any value. Being an admission made before police. Thus, the stand of respondents that they have acquired the car being case property of F.I.R.
No,196 of 1998 is devoid of any force.
6. When questioned as to why the trial Court has not been approached for Supercar of car, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that since the car has not been used in the commission of any offence and similarly no offence appears to have been committed in respect of that car, so the trial Court could not be approached for appropriate relief. The contention is not devoid of force. A perusal of section 516-A, Cr.P.C. Reveals that it can be pressed into service only when an offence appears to have been committed in respect of any property or it appears that the said property has been used for the commission of any offence. Admittedly both the ingredients of section 516-A, Cr.P.C. Are not present in the instant case. Neither the car in question has been used for the commission of any offence, nor it appears that the offence charged against Nughman Siddique has been committed in respect of this car, as the same had been acquired from the bank (petitioner) prior to the alleged commission of offence. It is, thus, clear that petitioner could not resort to proceedings under section 516-A, Cr.P.C.
7. Since the car was financed by the petitioner and said agreement has been terminated by the customer i,e, Nughman Siddique, so the car stands reverted to the petitioner Bank, as the Bank still holds lien over the said car. Thus, the action of respondents in taking into possession of the car is declared illegal and without lawful authority and respondents are directed to hand over the car to the petitioner.
' With this observation, writ petition is disposed of.