1. ' By this application the applicant seeks abashment of impugned order, dated 2-5-1998 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malir, Sindh, passed in Criminal. Revision No,3 of 1998 titled as Muhammad Abdul Hussain v. The State and others, whereby Suzuki car, bearing registration No,J- 0746, Chasis No,126117, Engine No,259865 was ordered to be given on Super darinama to respondent No,1 Muhammad Abdul Hussain.
2. ' The relevant facts of the aforementioned Criminal Revision are that .Respondent No,1 Muhammad Abdul Hussain claimed to be the owner of abovementioned car as according to him the same existed in his name. He has further stated therein that the documents of ownership of the car along with papers of another car bearing No,A-5343 were missed during travelling from Makki Masjid to Shoe market on 14-5-1997 and such matter was reported to Garden Police Station and an entry to that effect was entered into Roznamcha, bearing No,3 and the said fact was also got published in daily newspaper on 15-5-1997. He also applied for issuance of duplicate set of registration book to Excise and Taxation Officer on 12-6-1997 but could not get the same and ultimately the said car was seized by D.S.P., C.I.A., Malir from his residence on 16-1-1997 without any justification and was deposited with the In charge, Nazarat. According to respondent No,1 the car in question was handed over to the applicant by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Malir on 30-10-1997, on his application, against which he filed the above-referred criminal revision. According to the applicant he filed objections in the above mentioned criminal revision and stated that he was the owner of the car and same stood registered in his name in the Excise and Taxation Office with the consent of the respondent No,1, who sold the same to him against consideration and such copies of documents were produced by him. In his objections he has further mentioned that respondent No,1 was his tenant and business partner and he had also file an ejectment case against him.
3. According to the applicant the abovementioned Suzuki car was concealed by the respondent No,1 and was not traceable as such on 19-7-1997 he gave an application to S.H.O. Of -Police Station Garden stating therein that respondent No,1 had sold him two cars including the car in question against a consideration of Rs,2,60,000 and got transferred the same in his name and promised to deliver the cars within one month but thereafter he did not hand over the possession but concealed the said cars at some untraceable places. Thereafter, when he went to police station to make inquiry about the Suzuki car, mentioned above, Garden Police informed him that his Suzuki Car No,J-0746 is available at C.I.A. Centre, Malir.
4. ' Subsequently he preferred an application for its delivery to the learned District Magistrate, Malir, who after proper verification from the concerned police as well as Excise and Taxation Office, handed over the same to him on 29-10-1997, against which the abovementioned revision was preferred wherein the decision was reversed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malir vide impugned order referred above.
5. ' I have heard Mr. Fazlur Rehman Awan, the learned counsel for the applicant, whereas Messrs Abdul Hakeem Rajput for the respondent No,1 and Habib Ahmed, Assistant Advocate-General, Sindh, for the State.
6. ' It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malir has erred in passing the impugned order and has not appreciated the factual as well as legal aspect of the case. According to him the learned lower Court ignored the fact that the applicant was the owner of the said car which was got registered in his name with Excise and Taxation Office by the respondent No,1 after taking due consideration. The respondent No,1 has given a false statement on oath before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate VI, Karachi (South) recorded in the referred criminal revision stating therein that one day applicant Syed Wali Najam came to his office and quarreled with him and took away the documents of his car, about which he lodged the F.I.R. At Police Station Garden and also got published such news in the newspaper. The above-referred entry at Police Station Garden and the news cutting do not reveal the above facts but it is mentioned therein that the respondent No,1 while going from Makki Masjid to Shoe Market on 14-5-1997 missed the documents of the disputed car. He lastly contended that the car was properly handed over to him by the learned D.M. After getting the verification from police as well as Excise and Taxation Office, as such there is no illegality in the order of the learned D.M. And the revision was not maintainable.
7. ' On the other hand, Messrs.' Abdul Hakeem Rajput, the learned counsel for respondent No,1 as well as the learned Assistant Advocate-General vehemently opposed the contentions of the applicant's counsel and argued that the applicant has not been able to show any illegality in the impugned order as such the same may be maintained. According to them the respondent No,1 is the owner of the said car and the police had secured the same from his possession, as such he is entitled to its custody under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. They further contended that the police was not competent to secure the said car from the possession of the applicant under section 550, Cr.P.C., as such the entire exercise of passing an order in favour of the applicant by the D.M., Malir is illegal. According to them the title of the property is in dispute and the applicant himself has tiled civil suit in that respect as such the disputed car may not be handed over to the applicant till the decision of the suit. In support reliance has been placed on 1986 PCr.LJ 332, 1982 PCr.LJ 215, 1997 PCr.LJ 1006 and 1994 SCM R 70.
8. ' From the documents, viz. Registration certificate of Vehicle J-0746, issued by Motor Registration Authority, Karachi on 6-11-1996 (filed as Annexure "B"), respondent No,1 Muhammad Hussain is shown to be the owner of the said vehicle, whereas the above vehicle was transferred on 21-5-1997 in the name of applicant Syed Muhammad Najam and such proof alongwith the one from the office of Excise and Taxation has been produced by the applicant showing him to be the owner of the said car. This fact was neither disputed by the respondent No,1 before the lower forum nor has been challenged in this Court and has been accepted by him. This is further confirmed from the statement of the respondent No,1 recorded by the Judicial Magistrate VI, Karachi (South), wherein he has stated that he had applied for the duplicate book in the office of Excise and Taxation but the same was not issued to him. This shows that he was not issued the duplicate set merely for the reason that the documents did not exist in his name. The respondent No,1 in his statement before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate has stated that the documents of the said car were forcibly taken away by the applicant after quarrelling with him from his office which fact was reported to Police Station Garden and such F.I.R. Was lodged and the same was also got published in the newspaper. The Roznamcha entry, referred above, and the newspaper cutting on the fact of it show that the documents of Vehicle No,J-0746 of respondent No,1 have been lost and in case of their receipt the same be sent to the office of Excise and Taxation, Motor Registration Office, Civic Centre, Karachi. Apparently respondent No,1 has made a false statement on oath which factor has not been considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while passing the impugned order.
9. Irrespective of this it is pertinent to note that A.S.-1. Zulfiqar of C.I.A., District Malir, Karachi secured the abovementioned car under section 550, Cr.P.C. Under Mashirnama attested by H.C.
10. Muhammad Anwar and P.C. Muhammad Arshad of C.I.A. Police, Malir, Karachi. In the abovereferred Mashirnama it has been mentioned that during investigation and search of the accused persons and properties in Case No,56 of 1997 under section 382/34, P.P.C., he stopped one person, namely, Muhammad Abdul Hussain (respondent No,1) on receipt of spy information arrested him and secured the above car under section 550, Cr.P.C. As he could not produce the documents of its ownership. A report to that effect was filed in the Court of the reamed D.M. Malir, Karachi on 24-10- 1997 by D.S.P., C.I.A. Malir and also report under section 523(1), Cr.P.C. Was submitted before the said Court. On 24-10-1997 the applicant had moved an application to S.D.M., Malir, Karachi, requesting that he is the owner of the car and the same may be handed over to him. Consequently, the particulars of the vehicle were got verified from the office of the Excise and Taxation and Motor Registration Authority, Civic Centre, Karachi, wherein applicant Syed Wali Najam was shown to be the owner of the said car as per letter, dated 2-10-1997. This all shows that the said car was secured under section 550, Cr.P.C. Correctly by C.I.A. Police, Malir on the suspicion that respondent No,1 .
11. Could not produce the documents of its ownership as such the contention that police was not competent to recover the car under section 550, Cr.P.C. Is without justification and not sustainable.
12. On the other hand, it transpires that respondent No,1 after taking the full consideration had sold the car to the applicant and got the same transferred in his name and due to some dispute over business transaction he had roped him in this case illegally.
13. Section 550, Cr.P.C. Authorises any Police Officer to seize/recover the property, about which there is a slightest doubt that the same has been alleged or suspected to have been stolen or used in the commission of offence or which may be found under the circumstances which create suspicion of commission of any offence. The mandatory provision of this law is that after such seizure a report is to be forwarded to the Magistrate under section 523, Cr.P.C. In this case the learned D.M. On receipt of report under section 550, Cr.P.C. Called the A report under section 523, Cr.P.C. From the concerned police and disposed of the property in question in a legal manner. Thus, there seems to be no illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
14. ' The case-law referred by the applicant's counsel is on different facts and circumstances with that of the case in hand.
15. ' The facts of case of Nawab and others v. The Superintendent of Police, Okara and others 1986 PCr.LJ 332 are quite different from the facts of the case in hand. According to the reported case it was observed that the Magistrate having passed an earlier order has no jurisdiction either to cancel the same or to pass fresh orders in supersession of his earlier orders. The other distinguished factor was that a seizure report as required under section 523, Cr.P.C. Was not submitted to Illaqa Magistrate.
16. ' In the case of Ghulam Muhammad v. Sultan Mahmood and another 1982 PCr.LJ 215, the Lahore High Court has held the seizure of tractor by police not in accordance with law and Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass orders under section 523, Cr.P.C. Mainly on the ground that the tractor was pledged with respondent No,1 by pledger (petitioner) and pledgee (respondent No,1) obtained ex parte decree from the Civil Court regarding tractor as the local police had taken possession of the tractor on pledger's application.
17. ' The case of Mst. Nadia Nadeem v. Azizuddin and another 1996 PCr.LJ 1006 is on sections 420 and 406, P.P.C. And has no relevance with the facts of the present case.
18. ' The Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Touqir Jahan and others v. Asif Latif Bajwa and another 1994 PCr.LJ 70 has maintained that High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is competent to exercise jurisdiction and has further observed while passing order in respect of disputes between two parties the interest of both parties is to be taken care of.
19. For what has been discussed above, this revision succeeds and is allowed, whereas the impugned order 2-5-1998, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Main-. Sindh is set aside and the order of the learned Divisional Magistrate, Malir, Sindh, dated 29-10-1997 is maintained.