Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 261 of 1969, decided on 19th June 1969.

S. 523-Superdari Dispute as to ownership of motor vehicle-Magistrate giving guidelines- in matter to police, while ordering to hand over vehicle in superdari of owner-Contention that Magistrate should himself have traced owner and not left it to police-not material in circum stances-Police handing over vehicle to person in whose firm's name vehicle stood registered-Such person, held, owner prima facie as defined in S. 2(24), West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965).

Mushtaq Raj for Petitioner.

Gulzar Hassan for A.-G. for the State.

Gull Muhammad Khan for Respondent No. 2.

This is an application under section 439, Cr. P. C. in respect of the orders for Superdari passed by the learned Magistrate with regard to Lorry No. LR-9876. In this lorry the petitioner had along with his brother 1/4th share as owner. It is claimed by him that the owners of the remaining 1/2 shares had also been purchased of. The registration book of this lorry was originally in the name of Khalifa Afzal Hussain and according to respondent No. 2 the petitioner and his brother owned 1/4th share in this lorry while Nazir Ahmad and Bashir Ahmad owned 1/4th share and one Nur Muhammad son of Nihal owned the remaining one-half share. The petitioner's claim that lie and his brother had become the full owners of the lorry is being disputed. It is further alleged for the respondents that the lorry had been given for the purpose of plying to Messrs Pak. Valley Transport Company Limited and according to the practice prevailing in the business Messrs Pak. Valley Transport Company Limited were shown as owners of this lorry in the registration book and in the records of the Regional Transport Authority concerned. It is alleged that the petitioner had made a false report with Police Station Saddar Lyallpur, that the original registration book had been lost and has forged a letter on behalf of Mst. Maqsood-ul-Haq, Manager of the Pak. Valley Transport Company and had then got the duplicate registration book issued in big own name from the Excise and Taxation Office, Lyallpur, after filing some other false documents in the said office. After having done this he is alleged to have taken unlawful possession of this lorry when the same was on its way from Lyalipur to Lahore on the 6th of November 1968. The matter was reported to the police by respondent No. 2 on the same date vide F. I. R. No. 208 dated 6th November 1968, r Police Station Khurerianwala. During the investigation of that case the police took into possession this lorry and is alleged to have given the same to respondent No. 2 under the orders of the Magistrate. The petitioner had made a separate application for quashment of the proceedings which has been disposed of to day under a separate order.

2. In the present application, the objections raised on behalf of the petitioner are-

(1) that the Magistrate should himself have passed the order under section 523, Cr. P. C. and should not have given a discre tion to the investigating police to make over the vehicle to its owner,

(2) that the owner of the vehicle was not respondent No. 2 but the petitioner was an owner at least to the extent of 1/8th share in the vehicle.

(3) 'that the Magistrate did not pass suitable orders on the various applications made by him for superdari.

Point No. 3 urged is not material for the disposal of the present application. With regard to point No. 2 it is submitted that the term "owner" has been defined in section 2(24) of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance to indicate the person in whose name the vehicle is registered by the Registration Authority. According to this definition, respondent No. 2 was the owner of the vehicle in terms of section 2(24) of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance as the' said vehicle stood registered in the name of his company. The other objection that the Magistrate should have himself traced the owner and not left it to the investigating officer is also not very material as he gave the guide lines to the police and they properly traced the person to whom the custody of the ,, vehicle was intended to be made over. In these circumstances, this Court does not feel called upon to interfere, with the orders passed. This application is, therefore, dismissed.

Application dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.