' This Criminal Revision has been directed against the order of the Sessions Judge, Peshawar (Mr. Attaullah Khan Bangash) recorded on 9-6-1998 which reads as under:-- ."9-6-1998.
' Through the instant petition Zafar Yab, Advocate, Peshawar seeks the superdari of vehicle bearing Registration No,BUB-2555 earlier impounded in case F.I.R. No,1, dated 24-4-1998 under Article 3/4, P.O., registered at Police Station C.I.D., Peshawar.
' Arguments heard.
' The vehicle in question is entrusted to petitioner if he furnishes a bond in the sum of Rs,one lac with two sureties each in the like. Amount to the satisfaction of this Court with the under taking that he shall keep the vehicle as it is and shall also produce before the Court as and when required.
(Sd.) Attaullah Khan Bangash, Sessions Judge, Peshawar." Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Pajeero Jeep, Registration No,BUB-2555, was caught by the Crime Branch Peshawar while transporting contraband narcotics i,e, Charas weighing 560 Kgs (14 Mounds). Resultantly a case was registered at Police Station, Crime Branch, Peshawar, vide F . I . R . No,2, dated 27-4-1998 under section 3/4 Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 read with sections 6/7/8/9 and 13 of the Control of Narcotic Substance. Act, 1997, 13, Arms Ordinance, 1965 and 419/420, P.P.C. Against accused Suleman and others.
2. The learned Assistant Advocate-General submitted that Zafaryab, Advocate, respondent No,1 who had no nexus with the vehicle in question, applied to Mr. Attaullah Khan Bangash, Sessions Judge, Peshawar, respondent No,2 revesting that the said Pajeero Jeep be given to him on Superdari vide his application, dated 8-6-1998. The -application, for the sake of convenience, is reproduced as under:-- {{URDU TEXT}}
3. The Sessions Judge/respondent No,2 without giving a notice to the State, ordered that the Pajeero Jeep be handed over to Zafaryab, Advocate respondent No,1 vide: his order recorded on the very next day i,e,, 9-6-1998.
4. The learned Assistant Advocate-General for State, at the very outset, submitted that the Sessions Judge acted in haste and did not bother to apply his mind while granting the custody of the Pajeero Jeep to respondent No,
1. He submitted that it was done for no rhyme or reason or for reasons best known to the Sessions Judge alone because respondent No,1 is neither the owner of the vehicle nor the same was recovered from his custody/possession.
5. According to him the impugned order is not only illegal, without lawful authority but is also mala tide and, therefore, liable to be set at naught: He further contended that the Sessions Judge was so rash in passing the impugned order that he even failed to notice that the vehicle in question was caught by the Crime Branch, Peshawar in case registered vide F.I.R. No, 2, dated'- 27-44-1998 at Police Station, Crime Branch and not in case registered by the C.I.D. Peshawar vide F.I.R. No,1, dated 24-4-1998 under section 3/4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 as has been mentioned by him in his order impugned. The Assistant Advocate-General then went on to submit that the order of the Sessions Judge was arbitrary and perverse and clearly smacks of mala divides. He prayed that in the circumstances the impugned order be, therefore, set aside.
7, When confronted with this situation the learned counsel for respondent No,1 had no answer. He, however, stated that the Sessions Judge had the powers to give the vehicle on Superdari to anybody during the trial of the case and that he had exercised the said power, in his discretion, which may not be interfered with.
8. I am afraid that the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No,1 is not correct. The Superdari of the vehicle, in my opinion, could only be given to a person from whose possession the vehicle is recovered or who claims to be the bona fide purchaser of the same or to a person who is the real owner of the vehicle.
9. Here, in this case, the vehicle was given to Mr. Zafaryab, Advocate who had no nexus, whatsoever, with the vehicle in question. It, therefore, follows that the Sessions Judge acted illegally and without lawful authority. He even failed to apply his mind to the facts of the case inasmuch as the vehicle in question was hauled up in case registered vide F.I.R. No,2, dated 27-4-1998 by the Crime Branch, Peshawar whereas the Sessions Judge, in his impugned order has categorically mentioned/recorded that the vehicle was caught in case registered Vide F.I.R. No,1, dated 24-4- 1998 at Police Station C .1. D Peshawar.
10. The Assistant Advocate-General submitted that the Sessions _Judge has recorded a frivolous order which deserved to be set aside.
11. After having gone through the order impugned I am of the view that the Sessions Judge has not only acted in haste but has passed a very reckless order without even #, taking into consideration that the vehicle in '- question was not impounded in case registered vide F.I.R. No,1, dated 24-4- 1998 at Police Station C.I.D., Peshawar but was in fact caught in case registered vidt. F T.R No,2, dated 27-4-1998 at Police Station. Crime Branch, Peshawar.
12. The order, on the very face of it, is illegal and cannot be sustained. This Criminal Revision is accordingly accepted and the order of the Sessions Judge is set aside.
13. The Registrar of this Court is directed to send a copy of this judgment to Mr. Attaullah Khan Bangash, the then Sessions Judge, Peshawar now posted as Sessions Judge, Mansehra for his information and future guidance. He should also be instructed in writing/telephonically to remain careful in future and refrain from passing such reckless orders which bring bad name to the judiciary. Revision .