1. ' This is an application .Under section 56'I-A, Cr.P,C., directed against the orders, dated 16.12-1996 and 28-1.1997 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Malir in Criminal Revision Application No,13 of 1996 whereby the learned Sessions Judge ordered to impound the car and to produce the same before the said Court, hence this Criminal Miscellaneous Application for quashment of order passed in Criminal Revision Application.
2. ' Brief facts of , the. Case are that respondent_ Nea Khawaja M. Hussain Databu filed an application under section 523, Cr.P.C., before Judicial Magistrate Airport, District Malir stating therein that he under an agreement, dated 14-8.1993 joined the airlines as "Aviation Legal Expert" which agreement was for the period of two years wherein, in para.3, company undertook to provide a car to him on ownership basis which car was provided to him in September, 1993 by Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Ejaz Rab, but car documents were not given to him till date to register the car, in the name of, said respondent and failed to pay legal dues and committed breach of terms of agreement. Chief Executive Officer Company submitted an application to Police Station Airport stating therein that the said respondent had stolen away the said car, from the premises of company, however, the said car, as per para.4 of the application of respondent, it was handed over by him to S.H.O. For parking the same at P.S. Airport till further action, In the said application, the said respondent prayed for restoration of po3session of said ear. Learned Judicial Magistrate passed an order on 741996 bolding that the applicant to seek remedy through civil suit from the competent Court or the ground that dispute between the panics was of civil nature and not of criminal nature and the police was not competent to seize the property in the stated circumstances as there WAS neither report of theft nor said car was suspected to be stolen, The respondent No,1, against the said order, filed a Criminal Revision Application No,13 of 1996 before Sessions Judge, Malir, who passed the impugned order on 16.12-1996 which has been challenged before this Court.
3. ' Heard learned counsel for applicant, State, respondent No,1 in person and perused the. R&P which has been called from Judicial Magistrate, Mani'.
4. ' Learned counsel for applicant contends that the order of Judicial Magistrate with regard to handing over of car to the applicant being not judicial order could not be challenged in the revision, consequently, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge was illegal and without jurisdiction liable to be set aside, He has placed reliance upon Bahadur and others v, State and another (PLD 1985 SC 62 at 64). He further contends that the car was purchased by the Airlines and was given to the respondent No,1 during the period of contract but the said respondent on termination of his contract unauthorisedly took away the said car, consequently the same amounted to theft but for that no. Report was lodged, only an application was submitted to the S.H.0 who seized car and possession of which was ultimately given to the Airlines/the applicant, and the respondent has no right to the possession of said ear, ' Respondent No,1 in person has argued that as per agreement of contract, the applicant had to provide a car on ,ownership basis and it VMS actually provided in September 1,93 and it remained in his possession till it was taken over unauthorisedly by force by police and the S.D.M. Who passed the order for handing over possession of the said car was not authorised as he had no power to pass judicial orders after 21-3.1996 because of the separation of judiciary from the executive, He has placed reliance upon Mst, Nadirs Naeem v. Azizuddin (1997 PCr.LI 1006) in support of his contention, ' Mr, Muhammad Qasim Mirjat, A.A.-G., contends that the car is owned by the applicant and there has been breach of the contract as alleged by the said respondent, therefore, the dispute being of civil Nature, the respondent should have approached Civil Court for the recovery/possession of the car which is said to have been unauthorisedly taken dyer by the police.
5. ' Admittedly, as per agreement of contract, dated 15.8-1993, between respondent No,1 and the applicant as per para.3, 'car was provided to the said respondent by the applicant on ownership basis who remained in service of the applicant for some period but could not complete two years of contract and police took over possession of said car from the respondent No,1 and gave it to the applicant under the orders of S.D.M. Airport. Respondent No,1 contends that S.D.M. Airport was not competent to give possession of the said car to the applicant as he had no judicial powers being Executing Magistrate and he was ' entitled to the restoration of the said car, in view of section 523, Cr.P.C,, being entitled to its possession, The car admittedly was purchased with the money of applicant Airlines for the respondent No,l. No title is passed on in respect of car in favour of said respondent, Mere fact that it was taken over from the possession of said respondent by police, would not by itself make him person entitled to the return of the car or possession of the car considering that he did not possess any title over the car and his title did not ripen to the extent of his ownership over the car as his service stood terminated long before the contracted period. It is true that the orders passed by S.D.M. Could not be termed to be judicial orders, therefore, revision against the said orders under section 439, Cr.P.C., would not be maintainable, however, under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., this Court can pass such orders as would be necessary to prevent abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice.
6. In the instant case, the respondent No,1 claims the possession on the basis of one of the terms of contract which contract could not be completed and the ownership did not pass to the said respondent, therefore, he could not be a person "entitled to possession" of said car within the meaning of section 523, Cr.P.C. So far the orders of the S.D.M. Being administrative could not be challenged in revision, consequently, order with regard to impounding of said car in the circumstances could not be sustained. However, the respondent No,1 who claims the said car in view of agreement of his contract with the applicant/Airlines would be at liberty to seek his redress from the Civil Court having jurisdiction. However, the said car which has been given to the applicant/Airlines would remain with the applicant and would be returned to the person entitled to it according to finding of Civil Court, ' In the circumstances, this Criminal Miscellaneous Application is disposed of in terms of the above order. Order accordingly.