Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2024 SHC 3360. In this matter between Criminal Miscelleneous 875/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - MUHAMMAD AMIR IRSHAD S/O IRSHAD ALI (Appellant) and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.

Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: Criminal Miscelleneous 875/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi CITATION: 2025 SHC KHI 3360 PARTIES: MUHAMMAD AMIR IRSHAD S/O IRSHAD ALI (Appellant) ORDER DATE: 11-MAR-25 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jan Ali Junejo(Author) A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ \5s PRESENTED .J.i,l ZR:..e.8:?R?*.I1l FION'BLE HIGH COURI O'; S INDH A T i!,.ARACUI Cr. Misc. Applicotion No, flNz oI 2A24 Muhammad Amir lrshad Son of lrshad Ali Muslim, adult, Resident of Muhalla Ghouri, Taluka Obaro, District Ghotki, Sindh VERSUS 1.. The State 2. The Station House Officer, P.S. Airport. 3, The Excise & Taxation Office Near Civic Centre, District East, University Road, Karachi "."""""Respondents ' FIRNo'78 ot2O19 P'S' AirPort' Karaihi U/S:23(ilA of S'A'A'2013 CRIMINAL MISCETLANE 0US AFPLICfiTICIFI UNDER SECTIOIV \ F" Wre Appiicant c ou ii( 551-l1Cr.P.C., 1898

l5q ffi IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, AT KARACHI Criminal Misc. ApplicationNo'875 of 2024 nt4"ftr-^"a a-, i.=nua "s' fne State & Others] For ApPlicant For State: Date of hearing: Date of judgment: Mr. Aftab Ali Wasaru advocate Mr. Mumtaz AliShah, A'P'G' Sindh' 77.03.2025 77.03.2025 jan Ali ]unej o, !r The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application urrder Section 55L-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, has been filed by Muhammad Amir Irshad (hereinafter referred to as the "Applicant') against the impugned order dated 22-07-2024 passed by the leamed Additional District ]udge-MII, Malir' Karachi' in Criminal Miscellaneous Application adsing out of Session Case No' 1402 oI 2019. The Applicant seeks the'issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) in resPect of a vehicle bearing Regis Lration No. BJT-427, Toyota Corolla GLI' Model 2017' Engine No'Z- g4sgg,ChassisNo.NZE170R-4121154'Horsepower1300CC' Color Silver (hereinafter referred to as the "vehicle in question'r). o\)R 7 o+(3 g"\ o -r{ j I IUD GMENT 2. The Applicant claims to be the lawful owner and possessor of the vehicle in question' having Purchased it from Mr. Muneer Ahmed Jomani on 15-09-20L8 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 30,18,000/-' The Payment was made in' installments, and the Applicant took physical possession of the vehicie on the date of purchase' The original title documents' includini the NOC issued by Bank Alfalah on31'0\-2022'were handed over to the Applicant, who has been in possession of *

t 2 the vehicle since 15-09-2018' The eppticlt entered into an agreement with a rent-a-car comPany for the monthly hiring of the vehicle at Rs. 45,000/- per month' Durihg this period' FIR No. 78 of 2019 was lodged against one $rsal Sohail r:nder Section 23(1XA) of the Sindh Arms Act' 2073' at Poiice Station Airpor! Knrachi, in which the vehicle in qufstion was allegedly made case ProPerty. Subsequentiv' a third party' Sohail Jamii' filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application \o' 90 of 2019 under Section 515-4., CI.P.C', seeking the ICIease of the vehicle ot superdari,claiming to be the last possessor of the vehicle' The application was allowed on 02-08-2019, and the veltcle was handed over to Sohail iamil' 3. The Applicant asserts that he was o'lu**" of the FIR or the proceedings until he was informed lby the Excise ancl Taxation Office @TO) that the vehicle was involved in FIR No' i'7A ot2019. The Applicant then filed an application before the j.i"r"rr"a Additional District Judge-VI[' Mdfir' Karachi' for the )iirrrut"u of an NOC, which was dismissed vide the impugned orderdated22-07-2024;TheApplicantchaiiengesthe impugned orfler on the grounds that it {aras passed without appreciating the fact that he is the lawful owner and Possessor , of the vehicle, and that the order is based bn a misreading and non-reading of the material evidence on rdcord' The Applicant * tr' 2+.;/. further contends that the learned Additional District ]udge notices to the concemed parties' including the ETO, and dismissed the a$plication summarily failed to ISS1le SHO, 10, and without considering the factual positio. uLa the entire material record. 4. The lealned counsel for the Applicalt argued that the Applicant is the lawful orn'ner and Possessor of the vehicle in question, having purchasecl it from Mr' Muneer Ahmed Jumani \bo tr I .L .I A ; I

\trl and having made full payment for the samb. The Appiicant has i been in possession of the vehicle since 15-09-2018 and holds all the original title documenb, including the irfOc issued by Bank AlJalah. The learned counsel contended I that the impugned order is based on a misreading and non-reading of the material evidence on record. The leamed Additional District Judge failed to appreciate that the Applicant is fhe lawfi:I owner of t the vehicld and has submitted all the relbvant documents to I prove his ownership. The learned counpel argued that the learned Additional District ]udge erred in ilot issuing notices to the concerned partieq, including the SHO, lIO, and ETO, before-t dismissing the application. The counsel j submitted that the matter should have bebn decided on rnerits after receiving reports from the concerned parties. tlr" tuumea counsel I submitted that the Applicant cannot be hqld liable for the acts or omissions of others, particularly whenl he was unaware of the FIR or the proceedings trntil informed by the ETO. The Appiicant acted in good faith ancl prompt{, filed an application for the issuance of an NOC upon learriing of the vehicle's involvement in the.FIR. The learned counsel relied on several judicial precedents to suPport the argument that the lawful owner of a vehicle is entitled to the issuance of an NOC, that the Applicant particular'Iy when the vehicle is no longer requir property.and the proceedings have been abated I death of the accused. Lastly, the leamed cgunsel has allowing the present Criminal Misc. Application. i7 d u e d toe apr AS yed CAS 5 Per contra, the leamed APG argue has no locus standi to seek the issuance vehicle was earlier handed over i to Sohail Jaldl pnsuperdariide order dated 02-08-2019. tThe APG contended that the Applicant is not the last possessJr of the r.'ehicie and, of an NOC, as the! X therefore, is not entitled to the issuance of pn NOC. The learned ,I: - co + '/.b)l

lbz 4 APG argued that the Apptcant must first possession of the vehicle before seeking NOC. The leamed APG contended that the APG submited that the proceedi-ngs in FIRiNo. 78 ot2019 wete abated due to the death of the accused, Arsai Sohail, and that the vehicle is no longer required as case ProPerty. However, the pplicant has failed to prove his ownership of the vehicle bpYond a reasonable doubt, as the vehicle was earlier handed over to Sohail Jamil onsuperdari. The APG argued that the $Pplicant must fust challenge the order dated 02-08-2019 before seeking the issuance of an NOC. Lastly, the learned APG has prayed for dismissal of the present Criminal Misc. Application. 6. I have carefully listened to and evaluated the arguments presented by the learned counsel'for the Applicant as well as the learned Assistant Prosecutor General I(APG) representing the State. Additionally, I have thoroughly examined the material on record with the utrrrost diligence and caution. Upon reviewing the record, it is evident that the Applicant has filed an application segking the issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for vehicle No. BJ-I-427, a Toyota Corolla GLI, Model 2017, before the learned trial court. T"ire basis for this application is that the case has been disposed of or abated due to the death of the accused, Arsal Sqhail. It appears that prior to this, an individual named Suhail iJameel had filed application r:nder Section 516-A of the Criminal Proced Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking the restoration of vehicle No. BJT-427 his favor Jn the grounds of Superdari, claiming to be the last possessor of the vehicle. After hearing 4" -utt"r, the court allowed this application through an order dated 02.08-2019, granting custody of the vehicle to Suhail ]ameel. Notably, the present Applicant did not challenge this pra"t, which legally I allowed the vehicle's custody to Suhailr Jameel as the last I establish his lawfu1 the issuance of an c + o { 5i; x ()

llo9 5 f possessor. It is ,important to highlight that the present Applicant is neither the last Possessor of thd vehicle nor was the vehicle handed over to him on Superdari as per the order dated 02.08.2019. In light of 'Jrese facts, ihe Applicant lacks the legal standing (locus standi) to obtain an NOC lor the vehicle in his name. Consequently, the rmpugned order issued by the leamed trial court is legally sound and doesl not warrant any interference. 7. It is important to recognize that the linherent jurisdiction granted under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) is not intended to serve as an alte[ative or additional I jurisdiction. Its pulpose is not to disrupt frocedrual la1v base$ on presumptive findings or hyper-tethnicalities but to safeguard the interests o[ justice and address grievances for which no 6ther remedy is available under ., this context, refers to the administration relief sought. The:efore, the instant Application is dismissed. it " Cr.P.C. justice, in I land dispensation of Miscellaneous I 'i lustice by the courts, not as an abstract o! intangible concePt' Reference is made to the case of SVed I amber 1,li Shah o. 1123) in support ofProzsince of Sindh and others (2024 S this princiPle. ConsequentlY, Criminal Miscellaneous Application lacks subs 8 In light of the above analYsis, this Court finds that the Applicant has not established a prima facie case to justily the ,k

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Sindh High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant