HAJI RAB NAWAZ Versus THE STATE

1. The applicant is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi .(East), dated 19-9-1986, whereby he has refused to hand over Wagon No. 833-956 taken by the police in its custody as case property.

2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that one Abdul Hameed alias Sohni was found murdered within the area of P.S. S.I.T.E. on 26-10-1985. after investigation by the police, it transpired that his murder took place inside the aforesaid wagon which is owned by the applicant and of which the deceased was a driver. This wagon was later on taken by the Gulshan-e-Iqbal police in its custody as case property. The applicant then filed an application before the learned Court of Sessions for return of the vehicle to him which was rejected by the impugned order, dated 9-10-1986 and hence this revision application.

3. I have had the advantage of hearing Mr. Umer Hayat Sandhu, learned counsel for the applicant only, as none has appeared on behalf of the State.

4. The contention of Mr. Sandhu precisely is that, the Wagon in question admittedly was neither used in the commission of any offence nor any offence was committed in respect thereof. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the learned Sessions Judge's order, rejecting the application of the applicant for return of the vehicle on Spurdginama is not justified.

5. I have perused the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. He appears to have proceeded on an assumption that it was the wagon driver who had committed the offence. It may be pointed out that one of the reasons stated by him in his order is that remaining of the vehicle in the custody of the police will facilitate the arrest of the accused as according to him the accused was an employee of the applicant. However, the facts appear to be contrary to that as already shown above. In any case leaving the wagon in custody of the police will not serve any purpose except reducing its utility. Moreover, it will tantamount to penalising the applicant unnecessarily as he does not appear to be involved in the commission of the alleged offence. Therefore, there is no doubt in my mind that the order passed by the learned Sessions Court will unnecessarily cause hardship to the applicant.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, I allow this revision and set aside the impugned order, dated 9-10-1986, and further direct that Wagon No. 833-956 be handed over to the applicant on Spurdginama after taking an undertaking from him that if and when the vehicle is required for the purposes of the trial, the same shall be produced in the Court by the accused.

7. M.Y.H./R-41/K Petition accepted.