' Ijaz Hussain, petitioner has filed this Constitutional petition challenging the action of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in forcibly taking away truck No,4916(PN) Bedford from the residential premises of the petitioner and parking the same at P.S. Katha Sagral, District Khushab.
' The circumstances which led the petitioner to file this petition, briefly, are that the truck mentioned above was owned by the petitioner and had been duly transferred to him and his brother by means of an endorsement by the office of the Excise and Taxation, Khushab. The registration book alongwith other documents pertaining to this truck are Annexures A, B & C of this petition. On 5-1- 1997 Ghulam Muhammad, A.S.I. Came to the house of the petitioner accompanied by four police officials. They forcibly took away the truck and parked it in the Police Station. On inquiry it was told to the petitioner that the truck had been brought to the police station since there was some money dispute between the earlier owner and the petitioner. It was thought proper that till the resolution of that dispute the tuck shall remain with the police at the Police Station. The Police informed that they impounded the truck at the instance of one Khan Muhammad Bhatti who in fact had no concern with the truck. As such the action of the police in forcibly taking away the truck and parking the same in the police station had no lawful authority and of no legal effect. It was, therefore, prayed that respondents Nos.1 and 2 may be directed to hand over the possession of the truck of the petitioner alongwith the original documents and action warranted by law may be ordered to be initiated against respondents Nos.1 and 2.
3. An order was accordingly passed on this petition on 12-1-1997 that the truck shall be property garaged and the police shall send their comments or the averments of the petitioner.
4. During the pendency of this petition C.M. 578 of 1997 was filed complaining that notwithstanding the receipt of the order' dated 12-1-1997 the learned local Magistrate granted the Supardari of the truck to Muhammad Khan applicant/respondent for which he had no legal mandate and that he has committed contempt of this Court. Notice under section 5/4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 was issued to the learned Magistrate tp. Explain as to why he should not be proceeded against. He has not been/ served till today and proceedings of contempt shall be initiated separately.
5. As for the Supardari of the truck it is noteworthy that subsequently the learned Magistrate, presumably on coming to know of this order withdrew his earlier order and then consequently after quite some time after hearing the parties recalled his order granting Supardari to the respondent.
The petitioner went into a revision before the learned Sessions Judge but withdrew the same for reasons best known to him.
6. Now the position is that the truck was impounded by the local police under section 550, Cr.P.C. By means of Report No,9, dated 5-1-1997 which envisages that any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which may be found under the circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any/offence. Such a police officer shall forthwith report the seizure to a senior officer. Now when its truck was seized under section 550, Cr.P.C. Suspecting it to be stolen and was lying with the police, the proper course for the petitioner was to have approached the learned Magistrate under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. Seeking temporary custody of the truck. They, however, chose to come to this Court for relief.
7. According to section 516-A, Cr.P.C. When any property regarding which any offence appears to have been committed the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of inquiry or trial. Now this shows that the police has seized this truck under suspicion of being involved in a criminal case and the petitioner was at liberty to move the competent Court for its custody and this course had not been adopted. As such it would not be appropriate by this Court to bypass the initial Court and the initial Appellate Court and to take up the matter straightaway. In these circumstances it seems fair and equitable that the matter should be resolved by filing a suitable petition, if so advised, before the learned trial Court. The aggrieved party may avail the remedy as provided in law by filing a revision petition in the competent Court.
With these remarks the writ petition is dismissed and the parties are left to seek their relief from the lower Court.
7. As for the contempt, separate file had been ordered to be opened for this and notice was issued to the learned Magistrate for the date indicated in the said order.
' Disposed of.