MUHAMMAD SHAUKAT vs THE STATE and 2 others
This criminal revision application assails the order of the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Khipro dismissing the applicant's application for the release of his confiscated vehicle, a Hyundai Shahzore, which was seized in connection with an F.I.R. concerning the trafficking of Ghutka. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in refusing to release the vehicle to its registered owner, who was not nominated in the crime, particularly when the vehicle was no longer required for investigation. The Sindh High Court allowed the revision application and set aside the impugned order, holding that the trial court erred in denying the release of the vehicle. The court laid down the principle that a seized vehicle not required for further inquiry or investigation should be released to its rightful owner upon proper verification, subject to appropriate solvent surety, even if allegedly used in the commission of an offense.
- Whether a seized vehicle not required for investigation or inquiry can be released to its registered owner?
- Can a trial court refuse the superdari of a vehicle solely on the ground that it was allegedly used in the commission of an offense?
- What are the prerequisites for releasing a confiscated vehicle to its owner under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 516-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 50, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, J.---Through instant Revision Application, the applicant has assailed the order dated 10-3-2011 passed by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Khipro in Criminal Case No.32 of 2011 whereby the application moved by the applicant under sections 516-A and 50, Cr.P.C.
2. Seeking release of vehicle i.e. Hyundai Shahzore bearing Registration No.KM-6533, Engine No.3774754 and Chasis No.109781 was dismissed.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the . Impugned -order is contrary to law as neither applicant is required in the instant crime nor vehicle has been declared as case property. It is further stated that the alleged offences mentioned in the F.I.R. Are bailable whereas the accused persons nominated therein have been granted bail whereas, the vehicle owned by the applicant. Has not been released to him. It has been further argued that F.I.R. No.11 of 2011 was registered against accused persons. Wherein it was alleged that the subject vehicle was used for the purpose of trafficking Ghutka, however, on an application moved by the applicant seeking release of vehicle the learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Khipro, allowed the same, and S.H.0, Police Station Khipro was directed to return the above said vehicle to its owner Muhammad Shaukat on proper verification and identification. Per learned counsel on 21-2-2011 the applicant submitted an undertaking/personal bond before the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate wherein it was stated by the applicant that no violation of terms and conditions would be committed and he will also produce vehicle on 4-2-2011 before the learned trial Court. However, per learned counsel, the subject vehicle was once again confiscated by the police on the allegation that the said vehicle was again found in the use for trafficking of Ghutka. Another F.I.R. No.24 of 20.11 against the accused person was registered for the same offence: It was stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that with mala tide intention and in order to extort money, the above vehicle has falsely been involved in another false case whereas the learned Judge has observed that the subject vehicle has been used in the same crime, therefore, the release of subject vehicle to the applicant was denied. Per learned counsel, the impugned order under the facts and circumstances of this case is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the case of PLD 1974 SC 5 relevant 10 and 11., PLD 2002 Pesh 87 relevant 90, 2002 PCr.LJ 97 relevant 100, 2005 PCr.LJ 952.
4. Conversely the learned A.P.-G has referred to the comments submitted in Court on behalf of respondent. I.O. Present in Court has stated that neither the applicant has been nominated in the instant F.I.R. Nor he is required in the instant crime. However, the vehicle has been confiscated as the accused persons nominated in the F.I.R. Were using it for the purpose of trafficking ghutka. He has further stated that vehicle is not required for any inquiry or investigation. However, the legal position as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant has not been denied by the LO. As well as learned A.P.-G. Who has candidly conceded that under the circumstances and in view of case- law referred to hereinabove the learned trial Court was not justified to dismiss the application of applicant/owner seeking release of vehicle. Learned A.P.-G. Submitted that vehicle may be released to the applicant subject to furnishing surety. To this submission learned counsel for the applicant submitted that since surety in the sum of Rs.500,000 is already submitted by the applicant before the trial Court therefore, on the same surety, the vehicle may be released.
5. I have heard both the learned counsel and perused the record. In view of the above facts and perusal of judgments relied by the learned counsel for the applicant, the impugned order is set aside. Trial Court is directed to release the vehicle to the applicant upon proper verification and identification however, subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000 (Rupees two lac only) to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, as the vehicle has been allegedly used in the same crime.
6. The application is disposed of in the above terms.