MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE and others

ORDER

' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders of the learned Magistrate Section-30, detaining, dated 6-4-2005 and the orders of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khanewal, dated 3-5-2006 in criminal revision on the grounds that the learned Magistrate was not justified in dismissing the application of the petitioner for grant of superdari of the tractor in question as the petitioner having been defrauded by Zafar Iqbal and respondent No, 3 had lodged F.I.R. No,530/04, dated 22-11-2004 for offences under sections 420/468/471/467/419, P.P.C. And the tractor being case property of the said F.I.R. The petitioner was entitled A to its possession on superdari. Further, the learned revisional Court also erred in law by dismissing the revision petition vide the impugned order dated 3-5-2006.

2-3.0n the other hand the learned Additional Advocate General states that the learned Courts below were justified in granting, superdari of the tractor in question to Allah Ditta/respondent No, 3 as the said respondent had produced original registration book of the tractor and he being the last registered owner was entitled to the grant of superdari under the law. On the other hand, the petitioner had no document in support of his claim except a registration book, which admittedly was bogus, hence the orders of the Courts below were in accordance with law. Further contended that the dispute between the parties could only be resolved through appropriate proceedings by the learned Civil Court.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate General and have perused the record as well as the impugned orders of the learned Courts below.

5. A perusal of the record as well as impugned orders reveal that the tractor in question was taken into custody, by the police under section 550, Cr.P.C. And the superdari of the same was given to Allah Ditta respondent No, 3 on 6-4-2005 by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Jahanian on presentation of registration book bearing No DGE-6181 which pertains to the tractor in question and belongs to the said respondent being the last registered owner.

' The registration book produced by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate was found to be bogus as admitted by the petitioner himself. Thus it is obvious that both the Courts below while deciding the matter of grant of superdari of the tractor have acted in accordance with law on the basis of documents produced by parties.

6. Even otherwise, the matter pertains to disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. Reliance is placed on the cases of Allah Ditta v Mukhtar' and another (1992 SC MR 1273), Mst. Naimat Bi through Fatima Bibi and another v. Mian Muhammad Hanif (2003 SCM R 1307) and Mst. Arjmand Ara Begum v. Ayaz Umer and others (2004 SCM R 489). Further concurrent findings of the Courts below cannot be interfered with in the instant proceedings. Reliance is placed on the cases of Mauzam Hanif v.

Settlement Officer/Collector and another (2006 SCM R 642) and Hameed Ahmad v. Gulab Khan (2006 SCM R 895).

7. The question as to the ownership of the tractor pertains to the determination of title of the parties which can only be resolved by a civil Court after recording of evidence of the parties which exercise of course, cannot be undertaken by this Court in the instant proceedings.

8. For what has been discussed above, the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned orders warranting interference in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently the petition being without merit is dismissed.