Federal Shariat Court ALLIED ENGINEERING AND SERVICES LTD.- vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal revision petition filed before the Federal Shariat Court seeking the deletion of a condition imposed on the sale of a motor vehicle previously given on 'Superdari'. The core legal question concerned the legality of requiring a purchaser to bind themselves to produce a vehicle before a court where no underlying criminal case was pending. The court held that imposing a condition for the production of the vehicle is unjustified when no proceedings require its production before that forum. Consequently, the revision petition was allowed, and the impugned condition requiring the production of the car was deleted from the trial court's order.
- Can a court impose a condition for the production of a vehicle on Superdari when no criminal case is pending before it?
- Whether the delay in filing a revision due to a mistaken choice of forum can be condoned?
ORDER
1. Criminal Miscellaneous No,64-K of 2004 ' S.A. RABBANI,. J.--- Mr. Mehmood A. Qureshi, Advocate submits that he had filed a revision before the High Court and ultimately he was told that the revision lies before this Court and that caused the delay. I am inclined to condone the delay. Order accordingly. C.M. Is disposed of. Criminal Revision No, 14-K of 2004 ' Mr. Mehmood A. Qureshi, Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased a car from a Leasing Company and it was snatched from him by somebody, whereafter the car was recovered and was given to the petitioner by Court, on `Superdari'. He submits that, during this period, he paid all instalments and the car was transferred and registered in the name of the petitioner. Mr. Qureshi contends that the petitioner wanted to sell the car for which he sought permission of the Court that had given the car on `Superdari' and the Court viz. 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South granted the permission vide order, dated 10-5-1994 subject to the condition that new owner should appear before the Court and bind himself to produce the said vehicle on the same terms and condition.
2. ' Mr. Qureshi contends that due to this condition, the purchaser has been called upon to bind himself to produce car before the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South, although no case is pending before that Court in respect of the said car. Mr. Arshad Lodhi, leafned A.A.-G.
3. Concedes that the condition imposed is not called for in view of the fact that no case is pending in that Court that requires production of the car before the Court.
4. ' In view of the fact that no case is pending before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South requiring production of the said car before the Court, the condition imposed was not justified. The revision is accordingly allowed and the condition for production of car imposed through the impugned order is deleted.
5. Revision .