Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Revision No. 534 of 1974, heard on 21st November 1974.
‑‑ S. 439 read with S. 561‑A‑‑Car registered on two different num bers‑Each party claiming superdari as owner on basis of registra tion number‑Trial Court perusing Police and Excise & Taxation record and giving custody to respondent‑Such discretion although ordinarily not interfered with yet High Court on summoning Motor Vehicle Examiner's record finding chasis and Engine Nos. registered in petitioner's name‑Order set aside in circumstances.
Shaukat Haroon for Petitioner.
Muhammad Anwar Bhindar for A.‑G. for Respondent No. 1.
Sh. Ziauddin for the State.
Dates of hearing : 20th and 21st November 1974.
The bone of contention between the parties is a motor car bearing the Engine No. 2 R‑203982 and the Chasis No. RT 40‑99275. The petitioner claims that this car was registered in the name of Ch. Feroz Din and given the registration No. LED/7004. According to the petitioner he purchased it from Ch. Feroz Lain, it was being used as a taxi‑cab when in January 1969 it was stolen. Subsequently, it was recovered from the possession of Muhammad Yusuf respondent but at the time of the recovery the number found on its number plate was LED/7483. Muhammad Yusuf respondent claims that he purchased it from one Abdul Rashid of Daska who claimed title to the car through two intermediaries from Muhammad Hatim, the original owner. According to the respondent, the car recovered from his possession, as it bears a different registration number is not the vehicle which was allegedly stolen from the custody of Muhammad Riaz petitioner.
2. The matter is before a Magistrate. But in the course of the trial, the question of the interim custody of the car arose. The car was recovered on 18‑11‑1973. It was first given on Sapurdari to Muhammad Riaz peti tioner on 21‑11‑1973. But subsequently on an application made by Muhammad Yusuf respondent the learned trial Court ordered on 8‑7‑1974 that the car be delivered to Muhammad Yusuf respondent. It is against this order that the present revision petition is directed. The car is, however, still in the possession of Muhammad Riaz petitioner. the learned Magistrate while directing delivery of possession to Muhammad Yusuf respondent did take into consideration the record of the police and also of the Excise & Taxation Department. He has also noticed certain authorities hearing on the question of the interim custody,
3. In these circumstances this Court would not normally interfere with such order of a trial Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. But the record of the Motor Vehicle Examiner Lahore which has been produced for the first time today, in compliance with a direction given by me, indicates that the vehicle bearing the Chasis and engine numbers given above had been allotted the registration No. LED/7004. This record was not before the learned Magistrate. This is the record which is complete to all particulars whereas in the Excise & Taxation record the chasis and engine numbers are not given against the registration No. LED/7004. If the record of the Motor Vehicle Examiner were before the learned Magistrate I am certain his decision would be different.
4. The learned counsel for Muhammad Yusuf respondent has pointed out that to the Motor Vehicles Examiner's record the model of the car has been given as 1965 whereas in the F. I. R. it was said that the stolen car was a 1966 model‑Toyota. But in view of the chasis and engine numbers, this discrepancy in the model does not create any doubt with regard to the identity of the vehicle. The car which is still in possession of Muhammad Riaz petitioner, therefore, appears prima facie to be the one stolen from his possession. This is, however, not to be treated as a final verdict.
I am, therefore, of the view that it is the petitioner (Muhammad Riaz) who is entitled to retain the custody of the car until a final verdict is recorded by the trial Court after taking all the evidence produced before him.
5. Accordingly, I accept the revision petition, set aside the impugned order dated 18‑7‑1974 and direct that the car be allowed to remain in the custody of Muhammad Riaz petitioner on his furnishing security in the stem of Rs. 40,000 (rupees forty thousand) to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The petitioner is allowed seven days for this purpose.
Order set aside.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer