JUDGMENT ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J. - The case in hand pertains to the matter of Superdari of a Toyota Corolla motor car, Model 1979, bearing registration No. LHE-8980. According to Abdul Rashid petitioner the said motor car was purchased by him and the registration of the same had been transferred in the petitioner's favour on 14.7.1999. On 24.7.1999 Arshad Ali, respondent No. 1 herein, lodged F.I.R. No. 329 at Police Station, Baghbanpura, Lahore tor offences under Sections 379/420, PPC alleging therein that the petitioner had stolen the said motor car with the collusion of one Tariq Javed alias Pappu. On 25.7.1999 the local police recovered the said motor car and kept the same at the above mentioned Police Station. The petitioner filed an application on 3.8. 1999 before the Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Cantt., Lahore for obtaining the said motor car on Superdari. After obtaining a report from the police in that regard the said Magistrate passed an order on 4.8.1999 giving the said motor car on Superdari to the petitioner. It so happened that till the next day the said motor car had not been handed over to the petitioner by the local police and due to that the petitioner filed an application in respect of contempt of Courts against the local police before the said Magistrate on 5.8.1999. On the next day, i.e. 6.8.1999 respondent No. 1 also joined the said proceedings and filed an application for adjournment of the same. Vide order dated 7.8.1999. The said Magistrate after hearing the petitioner and respondent No. 1 once again passed an order giving the said motor car on Superdari to the present petitioner. On the same day, i.e. 7.8.1999 respondent No. 1 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the present petitioner and the Station House Officer of the above- mentioned Police Station in respect of the said motor car and alongwith his plaint respondent No. 1 also submitted an application for temporary injunction regarding transfer of possession of that motor car to the petitioner. On 29.1.2000 the application of respondent No. 1 for temporary injunction was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore seized of the said case.
Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal against that order but his appeal in that regard was also subsequently dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore vide judgment dated 16.3.2000. On 20.3.2000 respondent No. 1 filed a revision petition before the Court of Sessions, Lahore assailing the orders dated 4.8.1999 and 7.8.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Lahore whereby Superdari of the motor car in question had been ordered to be given to the petitioner. Later on through the order dated 5.4.2000 the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore seized of respondent No. l's revision petition-accepted the said revision petition, set aside the orders dated 4.8.1999 and 7.8.1999 passed by the Magistrate and directed the police to hand aver the motor car in issue to respondent No. 1. The said order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore on 5.4.2000 has been assailed by the petitioner before this Court through the present petition filed under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C,
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have gone through the record with their assistance.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that while passing the impugned order dated 5.4.2000 the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore had observed that registration of the motor car in question had been got transferred by the petitioner in his name in a fraudulent manner and, therefore, he was not entitled to get Superdari of the said vehicle. I have myself attended to the relevant facts of this case as . Borne out from the record and have noticed that during the investigation of the criminal case in question Mr. Jamshed Qazi, Assistant Superintendent, of Police, Mr. Muhammad Azeem Khan, Superintendent of Police (Discipline and Inspection) and a^Deputy Superintendent of Police, Range Crime, Lahore had concurred in their findings that one Tariq, A.S.I. And Shafqat, S.H.O. Had connived with the present petitioner so as to get a bogus transfer of registration of the said motor car in favour of the present petitioner. The said Investigating Officers had come to a definite conclusion that the motor car in question had in fact been taken into custody by the local police on 13.7.1999 and thereafter the above-mentioned police officials had facilitated the petitioner to get a forged transfer of registration prepared showing such a .Transfer of registration in favour of the petitioner on 14.7.1999.
In this view of the matter the learned Addl-. Sessions Judge, Lahore appears to be quite justified in maintaining that the petitioner was not entitled to get Superdari of the said motor car. The impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore is, therefore, quite just and fair to the extent of the present petitioner in the circumstances of this case.
4. During the hearing of this petition a question had cropped up as to whether a petition under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is competent and maintainable against a revisional order passed by a Court of Session. However, that question can conveniently resolved with reference to the cases of Haji Sher Hassan Khan v. Hidayatullah and another (1996 SCM R 1476) and Hussan Ahmad v. Mst. Irshad Bibi and others (1997 SCM R 1503) wherein it has been held by the Honorables Supreme Court of Pakistan that a petition under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is competent and maintainable before this Court against a revisional order passed by a Court of Session.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has maintained that the petitioner was in possession of a valid registration of the motor car in question in his favour and, therefore, depriving the petitioner of Superdari of the said vehicle was unjust and unfair. He has .Maintained that the inherent powers of this Court under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Cannot be exercised in a manner which achieves a result which is unjust or unfair have, however, remained unable to subscribe to this submission of the learned counsel for the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised even suo motu so as to examine correctness, legality or propriety of an order passed by a subordinate Court. Thus, the-revision petition filed by respondent No. 1 before the Court of Session, Lahore could not have been dismissed on that score, especially when respondent No. 1 had succeeded in showing that the impugned orders passed by the Local Magistrate- had brought about a result which was unjust and which had put a premium on the petitioner's alleged fraud.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has finally argued that a learned Civil Judge seized of respondent No. l's civil suit and subsequently a learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore seized of respondent No. l's appeal had refused to grant a stay order in favour of respondent No. 1 regarding transfer of the motor car in question to the petitioner on Superdari and, therefore, the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Lahore, seized of respondent No. 1 's revision petition on the criminal side, could not have ignored the above-mentioned orders passed by the learned Civil Court. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner also does not hold much water. The above-mentioned orders passed by the learned Civil Courts were primarily based upon the fact that the Local Magistrate had already passed an order of Superdari of the said motor car in favour of the petitioner and also that the petitioner was ostensibly possessed of registration of the said motor car in his favour. So, while deciding the revision petition of respondent No'. 1 against the Magistrate's orders regarding Superdari the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore was not to be controlled or guided by the Civil Court's orders which were in turn influenced by the orders of the Magistrate. It is also relevant to mention here that the above-mentioned orders passed by the learned Civil Courts were not in respect of a stay order in favour of the present petitioner but what had been done in the said orders was that a stay order was refused to respondent No. 1. Thus, nothing turns on this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. For what has been observed above the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to convince this Court that the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore on 5.4.2000 to the extent of the petitioner's claim to Superdari of the motor car in question warrants any interference by this Court through exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A, CriP. C.
Thus, the said impugned order is upheld to that extent.
8. However, while going through the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore on 5.4.2000 it has significantly been noticed by this Court that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had given no reasons for granting Superdari of the said motor car to respondent No. 1 after deciding that the petitioner was not entitled to the same. Upon a query made to the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 by this Court as to what was the basis available with respondent No. 1 for claiming Superdari of the said vehicle the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 only referred to a Sale Receipt and a Delivery Letter dated 18.10.1998 according to which one Abid Khan son of Risal Khan had purportedly transferred the said vehicle in favour of respondent No. 1 upon receipt of consideration. It has, however, been noticed by this Court that no inquiry whatsoever had been conducted by the Investigating Officers of the criminal case in question regarding genuineness or otherwise of these documents relied upon by respondent No. 1. It is also significant that the motor car in question had not been recovered by the local police from the actual physical possession of respondent No. 1 so as to bolster his claim for Superdari of the same. It is also critical to mention here that respondent No. 1 had in fact never applied before the Local Magistrate for giving the said vehicle on Superdari to him. In these circumstances this Court has. Seriously felt that while disallowing the claim of the petitioner to the said vehicle's Superdari the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore had granted respondent No. 1 the Superdari of that vehicle as a matter of course without actually attending to the merits if respondent No. 1's claim to the same. In this view of the matter in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. I have felt this aspect of the matter to be difficult to ignore. .The impugned order passed by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Lahore, therefore, warrants interference by this Court to that extent. It is, therefore, upheld in respect of setting aside of the impugned orders passed by the Local Magistrate granting Superdari of the vehicle in question to the present petitioner but it is set aside to the extent of granting of Superdari of that vehicle to respondent No. l.-It shall, however, by open to respondent No. 1 to formally apply for Superdari of the said vehicle before the Local Magistrate who shall attend to the merits of respondent No. 1 's claim in that regard and shall then decide the matter strictly in accordance with law. During this period the motor car in issue shall demain in the custody of the .Local police. This petition is disposed of in these terms.