1. ' The applicant has challenged the orders dated 12-1-1999 and 11-4-2000 passed by Additional District Magistrate C.l.A., Karachi and learned Vl-Additional Sessions Judge, South Karachi, hence this application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
2. ' The case of the applicant is that Wagon/Pick-up bearing Registration No,BUB-4089 present No,KF- 6121 was seized under section 550, Cr.P.C. By the respondent No,2 who is lnspector at C.l.A. Centre, Saddar, Karachi and thereafter the application under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. Was moved by the respondent No,4 namely Showkat son of Faiz Muhammad before the A.D.M., C.I,A., Karachi who allowed the application and the property mentioned was returned to respondent No,4. The present applicant then preferred Criminal Revision before the Sessions Court which came on the file of learned Vl-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South who also maintained the order passed by Additional District Magistrate, C.I.A., Karachi.
3. ' Mr. Mahmood A.Qureshi, learned counsel for the applicant, has contended that neither the property was suspected nor stolen. No F.I.R. Is said to have been registered in this regard. Even the aforementioned property is not involved in any crime. He has further argued that no report was submitted by the respondent No,2 under section 523(1), Cr.P.C. Before, the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the matter with regard to the area and has finally argued that the C.I.A. Inspector, respondent No,2, was not competent to take cognizance in view of authorities reported in PLD 1997 SC 408; PLD 1995 Lah. 606 and PLD 1995 Kar.
4. 16.
5. ' On the other hand Mr. Feroze Hussain Shaikh, Advocate for respondents Nos.3 and 4 has supported both the orders passed by the two Courts below.
6. ' Mr. Fazal-ur-Rehman Awan, Advocate for A.G. For the State, has also supported the orders passed by both the Courts below but thereafter he has contended that respondent No,2 was not competent to seize the said property as he is C.I.A. Lnspector and in view of authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he cannot take cognizance until and unless he is authorised by the competent authority. However, he has suggested that as far as dispute between respondent No,4 and the applicant with regard to the ownership of the property is concerned the same may be decided by the Civil Court having jurisdiction.
7. ' I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record.
8. Admittedly the seizure of the aforementioned vehicle has taken place on 4-11-1998 under section 550, Cr.P.C. By C.I.A. Inspector, respondent No,2, who was not competent to take cognizance or to seize as he has no authority and no such written authority has been submitted even before this Court. This aspect of the case has not been considered by the two Courts below. On this point I am being fortified by the authorities reported in PLD 1997 SC 408; PLD 1995 Lah. 606 and PLD 1995 Kar.
16. Admittedly no report under section 523(1), Cr.P.C. Has been submitted before the concerned A Magistrate having jurisdiction over the matter. Admittedly the application under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. Was incompetently filed by respondent No,4 as there was no case at all before the ADM, C.I.A., Karachi.
9. ' In view of above discussion and legal position, I am of the considered view that the, Courts below have not taken into consideration all the legal aspects of the case, particularly the competence of respondent No,2 who is C.I.A. Inspector. Accordingly, I set aside the - impugned orders dated 12-1- 1999 and 11-4-2000 and allow this Criminal Miscellaneous' Application No,188 of 2000. However, the applicant is at liberty to move before the competent. Court of law with regard to the aforementioned vehicle. / Order accordingly.