Haji Muhammad vs The State
This criminal appeal challenges an order of the Special Court (CNS) Peshawar, which dismissed the appellant's petition for the superdari (custody) of a seized Hino Truck. The trial court had denied the request on the grounds that the appellant was not the registered owner and the vehicle was allegedly used in the smuggling of Acetic Anhydride. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in dismissing the superdari petition without providing the appellant an opportunity to be heard regarding his claim of ownership, despite the appellant having appeared during the trial to assert such a claim. The High Court held that the trial court was legally obligated to issue notice to the claimant and provide an opportunity to explain his position before confiscating or denying custody of the vehicle. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh decision after affording the appellant a proper hearing regarding his ownership claim.
- Is a trial court required to provide a hearing to a claimant of a vehicle before denying a superdari petition?
- Does the lack of registered ownership automatically bar a person from seeking superdari of a seized vehicle?
- Can a trial court dismiss a superdari petition without issuing notice to a claimant who has appeared to assert ownership?
ORDER
LAL JAN KHA TTAK. J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.07.2019 of the learned Judge Special Court (CNS) Peshawar whereby the appellant's petition for return of Hino Truck bearing registration No.C2575/Lower Dir on the superdari has been dismissed.
2. Arguments heard and available record gone through.
3. Perusal of the available record would show that the petition for superdari of the subject vehicle has been turned down by the learned trial Court on the ground that the appellant is not registered owner and same has been used in the offence of smuggling of Acetic Anhydride. Although the appellant is not a registered owner of the vehicle but he is claiming its ownership on the basis of a deed and as such the learned trial court was legally bound to issue him notice before its confiscation to explain his position particularly when during the trial he had appeared there and had claimed ownership of the vehicle. Omission to the above effect of the learne d trial court has prejudiced his case.
4. For what has been discussed above, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order dated 24.07.2019 is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned trial Court to decide the same afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the appellant qua his ownership to the case vehicle.