Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MOHAMMAD ILYAS VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Ali BaigAbdul Khaliq
2020 Y L R Note 72 [Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court] Before Ali Baig, J MOHAMMAD ILYAS---Petitioner Versus The STATE---Respondent Criminal Revision No. 4 of 2020, decided on 19th February, 2020. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 516-A---Superdari of vehicle---Application of petitioner for superdari of the vehicle was dismissed by the Sessions Judge--- Validity--- Admittedly, the petitioner was owner and last possessor of the vehicle in question as evident from certificate of indexation issued by Excise and Taxation Department---No rival claimant had claimed ownership of the vehicle in question,---No useful purpose would be served to detain the vehicle in question in Police Station for an indefinite period, rather it would decay and deteriorate the colour and parts of vehicle---Investigation in the case had been completed---Revision petition was allowed, in circumstances. Abdul Khaliq for Petitioner. Deputy Advocate General for the State. Date of hearing: 19th February, 2020. ORDER ALI BAIG, J.---This criminal revision petition under section 439-A, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for grant of superdari of vehicle Toyata Saloon Car bearing Chasis No. NC-50-0014370, Engine No.44443-10030, Registration No. NCP GLT-01-6043, Model 1998, which was impounded by the police in case FIR No.13/2019, dated 20.05.2019, registered under Section 9(b) CNSA 1997, at Police Station Gonar Farm, District Diamer. 2. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier the petitioner had filed an application under Section 516-A, Cr.P.C. for grant of superdari of vehicle in the court of the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit vide order dated 04.02.2020, hence this petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner is bona fide owner and last possessor of the vehicle in question, therefore, he is entitled for custody of said vehicle on superdari. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that no rival claimant has claimed ownership of the vehicle in question and detention of vehicle in Police Station would not serve any useful purpose, therefore, by accepting this petition the vehicle in question may be handed over to petitioner on superdari. 4. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently opposed this petition by contending that the vehicle in question has been used in a commission of offence registered under Section 9(b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get the vehicle in question on superdari. 5. I have heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner is owner and last possessor of vehicle in question as evident from certificate of indexation issued by Excise and Taxation Department of District Gilgit. No rival claimant has claimed ownership of the vehicle in question, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the vehicle in question on superdari. Moreover, no useful purpose would be served to detain the vehicle in question in Police Station Gonar Farm for an indefinite period, as investigation in the instant case has been completed, rather it would decay and deteriorate the colour and parts of vehicle. 7. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed. Consequently, the police of Police Station Gonar Farm is directed to hand over the vehicle in question to the petitioner on superdari subject to his furnishing an undertaking to the effect that he will produce the vehicle in question in the trial court as and when so required and the petitioner shall not sale the vehicle till disposal of the case. File. ADN/22/GB Petition allowed.