Izzat Gul vs The State
This Criminal Revision Application challenges the order of the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Badin, which dismissed the applicant's request for the custody of his truck on Superdari. The truck had been seized by police in connection with a case involving the transportation of Gutka and Mainpuri. The core legal question was whether the lawful owner of a vehicle used in the commission of an offense is entitled to its interim custody (Superdari) once the investigation is complete. The Court held that the applicant, being the admitted lawful owner, could not be denied the use and utility of the vehicle, particularly as the investigation into the case had concluded. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to restore the custody of the truck to the applicant, subject to the furnishing of security and a personal recognizance bond. The principle laid down is that the custody of a seized vehicle should generally be granted to its lawful owner on Superdari once the investigation is finalized, to prevent the loss of the vehicle's utility.
- Is the lawful owner of a vehicle entitled to its custody on Superdari after the investigation of the case is complete?
- Can the custody of a vehicle used in the commission of an offense be denied to its owner indefinitely?
- Section 516-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant Revision Application are that the truck owned by the applicant was used for transporting Gutka and Mainpuri, for that a case was registered by the police. The applicant sought for its custody on Superdari by making an application u/s 516-A Cr.P.C, it was dism issed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Badin vide his order dated 13.01.2021, which is impugned by the applicant before this Court by way of instant Criminal Revision Application.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is lawful owner of subject truck, if its custody on Superdari is not allowed in his favour , then it would lost its use and utility . By contending so, he sought for setting aside of impugned order with direction to learned trial Court to restore the subject truck in favour of the applicant on Superdari.
3. Learned D.P.G for the State has sought for dismissal of instant Criminal Revisio n application by contending that it has been used in commission of incident.
4. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
5. Admittedly , the applicant is lawful owner of the subject truck; therefore, he could not be denied its use and utility under any circumstances, most particularly when investigation of the case in which it is involved is over. In these circumstances, the impugned order is set-aside with direction to learned trial Court to restore the custody of subject truck in favour of applicant on Superdari subject to his furnishing security in sum of rupees one lac and PR bond in the like amount to its satisfaction.
6. The instant Revision Application is disposed of accordingly .