KADIRMIND- vs THE STATE and anothers
This matter concerns a dispute over the interim custody of a mini-bus, which was the subject of an application under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner had initially been granted custody by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, but the High Court reversed this decision in criminal revision, awarding custody to the respondent, Ghulam Hyder, subject to a cash security deposit of Rs. 250,000. The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's order, noting that the vehicle was recovered from the respondent's driver and that the respondent's name appeared in the Excise and Taxation records. The Court held that allegations regarding fraudulent mutation of vehicle records must be adjudicated by a competent civil court. Finding no error in the High Court's decision to grant custody to the respondent, the Supreme Court affirmed the order but modified the security requirements. It directed the respondent to furnish additional security of Rs. 150,000, bringing the total security to Rs. 400,000, to abide by the final determination of the civil court, thereby balancing the interests of the parties pending final adjudication.
- Does the recovery of a vehicle from a specific individual's driver constitute a relevant factor in determining interim custody under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a court order the modification of security conditions for vehicle custody pending the final determination of ownership by a civil court?
- Should allegations of fraudulent mutation of vehicle records be determined in criminal proceedings or by a competent civil court?
- Section 516-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J.---The facts of the case need not be restated as the same are duly detailed in the impugned order of the High Court dated 29-5-1998 in Criminal Revision No,14 of 1998. In short an application under section 516-A of the Code 'of Criminal Procedure, filed by the petitioner before the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Provincial) Karachi, was allowed and custody of the mini bus in dispute was made over to him. A similar application of respondent Ghulam Hyder was declined. The High Court, in turn, allowed the above criminal revision application and directed the mini bus to be handed over to Ghulam Hyder, aforesaid, subject to his depositing a sum of Rs,250,000 with the Nazir of the High Court by way of security, the custody to be governed by the ultimate orders of the competent civil Court.
2. Hearing the learned counsel, we are of the view that no exception can be taken to the impugned order of the High Court, inasmuch as the recovery of the omni bus was made from the driver of Ghulam Hyder and besides, the name of Ghulam Hyder was also found mutated in the relevant Excise and Taxation record. As to whether such mutation had resulted upon fraud being practised by illegally filling up the blanks in the transfer papers etc. Are questions which must await due determination at the level of the civil Court. At the same time, however, we are of the view that the security taken by the High Court is, in all probability, insufficient. Accordingly, the High Court order is modified so as to add a further condition to the same, namely, that apart from the aforesaid cash deposit, respondent Ghulam Hyder would also be required to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Nazir of the High Court in the sum of Rs,150,000, the total such security of Rs,400,000 abiding by the final order of the civil Court concerned. To this extent, the petition, being converted into an appeal, is allowed but with no order as to costs.
Cited by 1 case
- RAFIULLAH vs ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE-GENERAL, PESHAWAR HIGH COURT 2016 P Cr. L J 437