SHER MUHAMMAD Versus STATE

ORDER

This revision application has been directed against the order, dated 14‑12‑1998, passed by the learned VIIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi (East), whereby the applicant was directed to furnish the surety in the sum of Rs.2,000,000 for the Superdari of vehicle involved in the case.

2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant Sub‑Inspector, Irfan Ahmad of Police Station Ferozabad lodged F,I.R. on 4‑12‑1998 wherein it is mentioned that Dr. Liaquat Ali, M.L.O., Jinnah Hospital, Karachi, informed him that due to the collision of Taxi No.PH‑3018 and a Truck on Sharea Faisal, (lead body of one person and four injured have been received by him and: in the hospital one lady has also succumbed to injuries. On getting, this information he registered a case under sections 320 and 337‑C, P.P.C. vide Crime No.744 of 198 of Police Station Ferozabad, Karachi.

3. Applicant moved the trial Court under section 516‑A, Cr.P.C. for restoration of Vehicle No.LSB‑5895, Hino, which was allowed and applicant was directed to furnish surety in the sum of Rs.2,000,000 for the Superdari of the vehicle.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant, in any circumstances, cannot be directed to furnish the surety for the release of vehicle in question and he has placed reliance on the case of Muhammad Rashid and another v. The State PLD 1991 Kar. 200.

5. Mr. Habibur Rasheed, learned counsel for the State condoned to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant.

6. In such matters object for the seizure of vehicle is inspection of the vehicle by examiner appointed by the Government as contemplated under section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965.

7. For the sake of convenience and ready reference section 95 of Motor Vehicle Ordinance, 1965 is reproduced hereinunder:‑‑

95. Inspection of vehicle involved in accident .‑‑ When any accident occurs in which a motor vehicle is involved, any person authorised in this behalf from Government may, on production if so required of his authority, inspect vehicle and for that purpose may enter at any reasonable time any premises where the vehicle may be, and may remove the vehicle for examination:

Provided that the place to which the vehicle is removed shall be intimated to the owner of the vehicle and the vehicle shall be returned without unnecessary delay, and in no case later than forty‑eight hours of its removal. "

8. Thus, it is crystal clear that except inspection of vehicle there is no other, purpose of its seizure.

9. In this context the learned counsel rightly cited the decision of this Court in the case of Muhammad Rasheed and others v. The State reported in PLD 1991 Kar. 200. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow:‑‑

"After a careful and anxious study of the cases referred to above, I am clear in my mind that the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are set aside. All the revision applications are accepted and the concerned S.H.Os. are directed to return the bus/trucks to their respective owners on a Superdiginama in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) cash, who shall also verify the documents relating to the owners of bus/trucks before releasing them to their respective owners."

10. In the circumstances the revision application is allowed and it is directed/ordered that the vehicle bearing Registration No.LBS‑5895 Engine NoA5969, Chassis No.FF4LA 13892 of Hino be returned to the applicant on Superdari.,

11. By, my short order, dated 24‑12‑1998, I had allowed the revision application. Above are the detailed reasons of the same.

N.H.Q./S‑212/K

Revision petition allowed.