MUHAMMAD LATIF vs SESSIONS JUDGE, JHELUM and 6 others
This is a criminal petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenging a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jhelum, whereby the custody (Superdari) of a motor car was granted to respondent No.2 by setting aside a magistrate's order. The core legal question was whether custody of a vehicle seized under Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 should be given to the registered owner from whose possession it was taken, notwithstanding a rival ownership claim pending in a civil court. The Lahore High Court held that since the vehicle's registration stood undisputedly in the name of respondent No.2 and it was seized from his custody, the Sessions Judge rightly awarded Superdari to him, leaving the petitioner to establish his title in the pending civil suit. The key principle laid down is that interim custody of a seized vehicle is appropriately given to the registered owner from whose possession it was recovered, and disputed questions of benami ownership must be resolved through a civil court rather than summary criminal proceedings.
- Whether interim custody (Superdari) of a vehicle seized under Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 should be granted to the registered owner from whose possession it was recovered?
- Can disputed questions of title and benami ownership of a vehicle be determined in summary proceedings for Superdari?
- Does the pendency of a civil suit regarding ownership bar the registered owner from obtaining interim custody of a seized vehicle?
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 550, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Instant petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Seeks the judgment dated 12-1-2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Jhelum. To be declared illegal, void and of no legal consequence, whereby custody (Superdari) of Motor Car (Toyota Corolla No.RIR-747) was ordered to be given to respondent No.2 by setting aside the order of the learned trial Magistrate dated 28-10-2004.
2. Precisely, relevant facts are that on 7-10-2004 police of Sohawa Police Station, District Jhelum, took -into possession a Motor Car (Toyota Corolla), with Registration RIR-747, Model 1984 from the custody of Yasar Mehmood (respondent No.2) while proceeding on application of the petitioner under section 550, Cr.P.C. The petitioner in his application to the police, had claimed that he is the owner of the said vehicle, which was given by him to his grandson (Yasar Mehmood) for personal use, but he intended to sell it, unauthorizedly.
3. Both the petitioner and respondent No.2 moved separate applications for "Superdari" of the motor car before the Judicial Magistrate, Sohawa, and in view of the respective opposing claims of title to the vehicle by the parties, custody of the vehicle was refused to both of them vide consolidated order dated 28-10-2004.
4. Being aggrieved of the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate dated 28-10-2004, the petitioner, as well as, respondent No.2 (Yasar Mehmood) filed their independent criminal revisions before the learned Sessions Judge, Jhelum, but the petitioner could not succeed as his revision petition was dismissed but that of respondent No.2 was accepted and "Superdari" was ordered to be handed over to respondent No.2 through order/judgment dated 12-1-2005. The petitioner has now filed the instant petition with the relief noted above.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the real owner of the vehicle is the petitioner, hence, the custody of the vehicle should have been given to him. He further argued that the petitioner has already filed a civil suit which is pending before the concerned civil Court and in the alternative, it was prayed that custody of the vehicle may be ordered to remain with the police till the final decision of the civil suit. It was further argued that respondent No.2 being daughter's son of the petitioner was brought up by him and the petitioner out of love and affection got purchased the Motor Car in the name of respondent No.2, to which he has no right, title or interest.
It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No.2 has no concern with the Motor Car, thus, its custody has incorrectly been given to him.
6. I have minutely considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record appended herewith. Police while taking action on the application of the petitioner, took the Motor Car into possession under section 550, Cr.P.C. From respondent No.2, who had claimed its ownership. Registration of the Motor Car in-question is undisputedly in the name of respondent No.2, thus, the vehicle, which was taken into possession by the police from its owner i.e., respondent No.2 was rightly ordered to be given to him. As far as, claim of the petitioner is concerned, that he purchased the vehicle in the name of respondent No.2, he has already filed a civil suit which is pending adjudication before the concerned Court where entitlement of A the petitioner will be determined after recording of evidence. The petitioner may, in case of his success, in the suit seeks possession of the vehicle but at the present, respondent No.2 was entitled to it which could not have been given to the petitioner or the police, as the proceedings under section 550, Cr.P.C. Were absolutely unauthorized.
7. For the reasons noted above this petition has no merit in it and is accordingly dismissed.