Sohail Ishaq, the petitioner by way of the instant petition has challenged the order dated 20-5- 2003 passed by Mr. Muhammad Furqan Ahmad, the learned Magistrate 1st Class, D.G. Khan whereby he has turned down his petition for interim custody (Superdari.) of the Car No.8672-LXN and allowed that of respondent No. 1 for the purpose and the order dated 13-5-2003 recorded by Mian Bashir Ahmad Bhatti, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, D.G. Khan whereby, he has dismissed the revision petition brought by him (petitioner) against the said order.
1. Briefly the facts strictly relevant for the disposal of the same are that the father of the petitioner has got registered the case F.I.R. No. 17 of 2003, under sections 406/392, P.P.C., with Police Station Civil Lines, D.G. Khan. The said car was taken into possession by the police in the same. The petitioner and respondent No.1 moved through separate applications for interim custody (Superdari) of the same (car). The application of the petitioner was dismissed while that of respondent No.1 was allowed. He (respondent No. 1) was ordered to be given the car in question on Superdari to him subject to his furnishing surety bond in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000 with direction to produce the same as and when required by the trial Court.
3. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of that order had preferred revision petition against the same which was dismissed by the said learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated 13-5- 2003.
4. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of both these orders has assailed the same by way of the instant petition.
5. It has been contended on his behalf that he is bona fide purchaser for consideration of the car in question and all the relevant documents are in his favour and so the learned Magistrate was not justified in giving the same to respondent No.2 on Suuerdari and the learned Additional Sessions Judge in dismissing his revision petition against the same particularly when respondent No.2 is one of the accused in the case and normally property involved in a criminal case is not given on interim custody to an accused and hence both the impugned orders suffer from perversity and improperty.
6. I have considered the submissions made by his side and gone through the copies of the record annexed to the petition.
7. There is no denying the fact that the car in question was taken into custody by the police from the possession of respondent No. 1 Sheikh Mehmood Ahmad. Though he is an accused in the said case got registered by the father of the petitioner but he has claimed its ownership. There is also no denying the fact that the registration book of the car in question is still in his name. The petitioner has based his claim of ownership of the same on the basis of an open letter. This has so been mentioned in para. No.1 of his application dated 21-4-2003 moved before the learned Ilaqa Magistrate for interim custody of the same. The copy of that transfer letter is available with this petition as Annexure 'C'. The careful perusal of the same has shown that there is no name of any person to whom the said vehicle stood transferred by the respondent No. 1. It contains mere its registration number and model. Almost all other columns in the same besides the one containing the alleged signature of respondent No. 1 are blank. So in view of that position of the said transfer letter, both the learned Courts below were right in not relying upon the same while as said above that the registration book of the car in question is still in the name of respondent No. 1 and the same was also taken into possession by the police from him. So the order of the learned Magistrate to hand over the said car to respondent No.1 on interim custody with the direction to produce it before the learned trial Court was neither erroneous nor improper exercise of jurisdiction. Similar is the position of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction. I, therefore, find that no case to warrant interference in the impugned orders has been made out. The petition therefore, is dismissed in limine.