KHALIQ AHMED vs THE STATE
This criminal revision petition challenges the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, dismissing the petitioner's application for the grant of Superdari of his car, which was taken into possession during an FIR registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, as the registered owner and sole claimant not implicated in the main narcotics offense, was entitled to the interim custody of the vehicle pending trial, especially when the vehicle was deteriorating at the police station. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner is the sole claimant, the trial has not commenced, and leaving the vehicle at the police station would cause further deterioration, the revision petition should be allowed. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the release of the car to the petitioner subject to furnishing surety and proof of ownership.
- Whether the owner of a vehicle can be granted Superdari when the vehicle was seized in connection with a narcotics case involving the driver?
- Does the prolonged detention of a seized vehicle at a police station justify its release on Superdari pending trial?
- Section 9-B, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 550, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' RAJA MUHAMMAD SABIR, J.--- The petitioner in this petition has challenged order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sialkot, dated 19-9-2002 whereby his application for grant of Superdari of his car bearing Registration No.STE-64, was declined.
2. ' Briefly the facts of the case are that Car No. STE-64 was taken into possession in connection with case F.I.R. No. 293 of 2002 registered under. Section 9-B of Control of Narcotic Substances Act for recovery of 210 grams of Charas from the driver Seat. The case was registered against Ziaul Haq alias Ziai driver of the petitioner and proceedings under sections 87/88, Cr.P.C. Were under progress when the impugned order was passed. However, according to learned counsel for the petitioner the driver has been arrested vide order, dated 28-12-2002.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the vehicle in question was not being used for trafficking narcotics. It is not the case property. The petitioner is its owner and has nothing to do with the offence allegedly committed by Zia-ul-Haq, driver of the car. The vehicle is lying in the Police Station since registration of case and its condition is considerably deteriorated. The petitioner is only claimant of the said car. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge has erred in law in dismissing the application for Superdari.
4. ' Learned counsel for the State does not seriously oppose the prayer of the petitioner.
5. ' Heard, Record perused.
6. The record shows that the car in question was taken into possession when 210 grams Charas was recovered from the seat of Zia-ul-Haq, driver of the car. He has already been admitted to bail. The trial has not commenced so far. The vehicle was taken into possession under section 550, Cr.P.C.
7. And the petitioner is the only claimant of the aforesaid car. The vehicle is lying in Police Station since 28-6-2002 and its condition is to be further deteriorated if the same is not granted on Superdari. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we allow the revision petition and set aside the impugned order and direct Addl. Sessions Judge to release the car in question to the petitioner subject to his furnishing surety of Rs.80,000 and proof of ownership.