SANAULLAH vs MUHAMMAD FAYYAZ AND Another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order regarding the superdari (custody) of a vehicle involved in a criminal case. The petitioner, accused of offenses under sections 406, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, challenged the High Court's decision to restore the vehicle's custody to the respondent, which had initially been granted by the Assistant Commissioner. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should interfere with a regulatory order concerning the interim custody of property during the investigation stage of criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court held that since the lower courts based their decisions on prima facie evidence supporting the respondent's claim and the case remained at the investigation stage, it would not interfere with the High Court's order. The court affirmed that such regulatory orders, absent a significant question of law, do not warrant Supreme Court intervention at the investigation stage, though the petitioner remains free to reassert his claim if further evidence emerges.
- Should the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court order regarding the interim custody of property during the investigation stage of a criminal case?
- Does a regulatory order concerning the superdari of a vehicle involve a question of law sufficient to warrant Supreme Court intervention?
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, J.-The petitioner who is an accused of the offences under sections 406/420, 468/471, P. P. C. On the basis of an F. I. R. Registered on 12-11-1980 seeks leave to appeal against the order of the High Court made on 19-4-1981 with regard to the custody of a :wagon bearing registration No. L E U 3323.
2. The petitioner is accused of having prepared certain fictitious docu--ments with a view to showing credit of Rs. 60,000 in the account of the respondent on 5-11-1978 and to have obtained on its basis the transfer of the vehicle. On discovery of the fraud played, the respondent got registered a case against the petitioner. The question of the superdari of the vehicle came up before the Assistant Commissioner, Kharian who on 22-11-1980 handed it over to the respondent against surety of Rs. 1,00;000. On appeal the Additional Sessions Judge on 21-3-1981 directed that the vagon be given in superdari to the petitioner. The High Court restored the order of the Assistant Commissioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was evidence on the police file, which showed that on 2-12-1976 the account of the respondent was credited by the petitioner by depositing a sum of Rs. 60,000 and the transfer letter was also in his name. The petitioner therefore was better entitled to be handed over on superdari this wagon. Besides, it is con--tended that the condition imposed by the Magistrate has not been complied with by the respondent while obtaining the superdari of the vehicle.
4. The allegation of cheating and forgery etc. Pertain to the document and events of 5-11-1978 and not to what happened on 2-12-78. The learned magistrate as well as the learned Judge in the High Court based the order with regard to superdari on certain documents and material, which appeared to them to support prima facie the case of the respondent. At this stage, in such a regulatory order where no question of law as such arises and the case as still at the investigation stage we would not like to interfere. Leave to appeal is therefore refused. However, this will not preclude the petitioner from repeating his claim if and. When sufficient material is available in support of his own contention and in repudiation of that of the respondent.