The STATE through Prosecutor-General Balochistan, Quetta vs ABDUL ALEEM
This criminal petition challenged the orders of a Judicial Magistrate and an Additional Sessions Judge, which granted superdari (custody) of a vehicle to the respondent. The vehicle had been seized by police due to allegations of using fake number plates, unauthorized police sirens, lights, and a government monogram. The core legal question concerned the criteria for granting interim custody of a vehicle involved in criminal proceedings. The High Court held that the lower courts acted in a cursory manner by failing to verify the vehicle's registration, tax status, or the legitimacy of its modifications before granting custody. The Court emphasized that mere possession at the time of seizure does not automatically entitle a person to superdari. It laid down the principle that a Magistrate has a duty to ensure a vehicle is compliant with applicable laws—including payment of motor vehicle tax and verification of registration—before releasing it. Although the lower courts erred, the High Court allowed the respondent to retain the vehicle, noting that the tax arrears were subsequently paid and the original registration documents were produced.
- Does mere possession of a vehicle at the time of seizure automatically entitle the possessor to interim custody (superdari)?
- Is a Magistrate required to verify the legal compliance of a vehicle, such as payment of motor vehicle tax and registration status, before granting interim custody?
- Can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to correct a cursory order passed by a lower court regarding the custody of case property?
- Section 516-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' QAZI FAEZ ISA, C.J.---The learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Quetta, vide order dated 6th June, 2013 had allowed the release of the vehicle in respect of which F.I.R. No,32/2013 was lodged at Police Station Bijli Road, Quetta. The operative part of the said order is reproduced hereunder:- "Report from SHO Bijli Road, Quetta is received. As per report vehicle in question was taken from the possession of present applicant, as such he was found the last possessor of vehicle in question. Even otherwise no other person has claimed the superdari of said vehicle. Hence application is allowed. Vehicle be released in favour of applicant, subject to furnishing superdaginama in sum of Rs,3,00,000 for satisfaction of this court. Application be consigned to record after its completion and compilation. "
' The State assailed the above order by filing Criminal Revision No,3 of 2013, however, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Quetta vide order dated 29th July, 2013 upheld the order of the learned Magistrate, as according to him, the same did "not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, warranting interference of this court".
2. That it is against the aforesaid two orders (hereinafter collectively referredto as "the impugned orders") that the State has filed this petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter "the Code"). Ms Sarwat Hina, the learned Additional Prosecutor-General ("APG"), states that the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order in a cursory manner without proper application of mind. The subject vehicle was not authorized to have police siren, lights and wireless set and was being driven with false number plates, i,e, "BC-0350" and with a Government of Balochistan monogram. The entire get up of the vehicle was to make it look like a vehicle owned by law-enforcement personnel, in particular of the Balochistan Constabulary as its initials (`BC') were used on number plates, whereas, the vehicle's actual registration number was "BD-0350". Customs duty had also not been paid on the vehicle, according to learned APG.
3. I had called upon the respondent No,1 to produce the original Registration Book of the vehicle. He was also directed to produce the original embossed computerized number plate, as it was registered in Karachi and as it was issued with such number plate. Respondent No,1 produced the original Registration Book of the vehicle that revealed that motor registration tax had been paid only till 21st December, 2007. Respondent No,1 also produced the original computerized number plate of the vehicle, i,e, BD-0350. Subsequently, during the pendency of the petition, the respondent No,1 produced a paid challan, showing payment made up to December, 2013 and payment of accumulated arrears of motor vehicle tax, total amounting to Rs,72,920.
4. The Investigation Officer of the case states that the illegally installed police siren, lights, wireless set and illegal number plates have been removed and taken into possession.
5. Messrs Tariq Mehmood Butt and Ghulam Nabi, Advocates for the surety and the respondent No,1 undertake to produce the vehicle as and when required by the trial Court failing which payment of Rs,300,000 shall be made. They stated that as the motor vehicle tax has now been paid and the original Registration Book and number plate which shall be affixed on the vehicle, have been produced the petition may be disposed of. The respondent No, 1 also undertook that the police siren, lights and wireless set shall not be installed nor fake number plate or government monogram/insignia will be displayed on the vehicle.
6. The learned trial Court had attended to the application submitted under section 516-A of the Code in a cursory and superficial manner. The mere fact that the vehicle was taken into possession from respondent No,1 would not automatically entitle him to custody thereof. A large number of vehicles are stolen daily and many of them are involved in crimes and terrorist activities, therefore, care must be exercised before the grant of custody of vehicles.
7. The learned Magistrate did not seek production of the Registration Book of the vehicle. When the original Registration Book was produced before me, it revealed non-payment of motor vehicle tax for over five years, and it was only during the hearing of this petition that the tax and accumulated arrears of tax were paid. Before granting custody of a vehicle it is the duty of a Magistrate to ensure that the vehicle is compliant, or is made complaint, with the applicable law, including ensuring payment of motor vehicle tax. The learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that one of the allegations made against the accused was that he was driving the vehicle with fake number plates, therefore, by returning the custody of the vehicle, but without ensuring that it had proper plates, he effectively permitted the vehicle to be driven either without number plates or with fake number plates. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also did not examine the matter in its proper perspective and simply upheld the order of the learned Magistrate.
8. That, however, since the applicable motor vehicle tax and the accumulated arrears have now been paid and the original number plate produced, compliance with the applicable law appears to have been made and the vehicle may now be retained by the respondent No,1 pending the conclusion of the trial. This order however does not come in the way of the Custom authorities if custom duty has not been paid thereon and they want to proceed against the owner/subject vehicle for non-payment thereof Petition stands disposed of.
9. The Registrar of this court is directed to circulate copy of this order to all the Magistrates, Additional and Session Judges in Balochistan.