USMAN NASIR DAR vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court declining his petition for "Superdari" (custody) of a Suzuki Mehran car taken into possession by the police as case property in F.I.R. No. 231 of 2007 registered under sections 324/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Ghari Shahu, Lahore. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the interim custody of the vehicle during the pendency of the trial. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to establish ownership, as the vehicle was financed and leased through a bank, remaining un-transferred, and further noted that the prosecution evidence regarding the recovery of the vehicle had not yet been recorded by the trial Court. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Is a petitioner entitled to the Superdari of a vehicle used in the commission of an offence without establishing clear ownership?
- Can interim custody of case property be granted before the recording of prosecution evidence regarding its recovery?
- Does a financed or leased vehicle qualify for Superdari to the borrower when installments remain unpaid and ownership is not transferred?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.--- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order, dated 8-5-2008 passed by learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Revision No,49 of 2008.
2. Brief history of the, prosecution case is that Suzuki Mehran Car No,LWA-8731 has been taken into possession by the police being used in the commission of the offence. In this regard a case F.I.R.
No,231 of 2007, dated 27-8-2007 under sections 324/148/149, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station Ghari Shahu, Lahore. The revision petitions filed by the petitioner for "Superdari" of this vehicle has been declined by the High Court vide impugned order.
3. We have heard the arguments of learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the complainant as well as the Assistant Prosecutor-General and perused the record with their kind assistance. The Suzuki Mehran car is the case property, the prosecution evidence has not yet been recorded by the trial Court. The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner when asked to produce the registration book etc. Of the car in question to prove its ownership, submitted that the "Al-Falah" Bank had financed the petitioner for purchase of the car, the instalment of Bank loan had neither been cleared as yet nor the Bank has transferred the car in favour of the petitioner. It means that it is leased vehicle and financial institution in case of default of any instalment can take the possession of the car. The petitioner has failed to establish the case of Superdari. Even otherwise the evidence of recovery of this vehicle has not been recorded by the trial Court.
4. For the foregoing reasons we do not find any substance in this petition which is dismissed and .
The petitioner may registrant the matter after recording the evidence of the witness of memo of
Cited by 1 case
- Mst. HUMA JAMEEL vs Mst. RABIA TARIQ RIZVI and 5 others 2019 MLD 1101