Form No: HCJD/C-121 ORDER SHEET IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Case No. Muhammad Sajjad Sr. No. 06) Date of order Writ Petition No. 9894 of 2014 vs The State etc. Order with signature of Judge, and that of parties or counsel, where necessary. 27.06.2014 Mr. Humayoun Rashid, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Razaul Karim Butt, Assistant Advocate-General for the State with respondent No.4/Muhammad Jameel Inspector/ Incharge AVLS, Gulberg, Lahore. Through this writ petition, petitioner assails the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore dated 09.04.2014, dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of learned Area Magistrate dated 15.03.2014, refusing application of the petitioner for grant of superdari of Car Toyota Corolla bearing registration No. LC-584. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned-orders passed by both the learned courts below are against the law and facts on record; that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the disputed vehicle, that was taken into possession by the Anti Vehicle Lifting Staff (AVLS), Gulberg. Lahore, under Section 550, Cr.P.C. from the petitioner and there is no rival claimant of the same, therefore, petitioner being last possessor, is entitled for superdari of the vehicle. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the case law 2005 SCMR 735 and 2002 YLR 699. 3. Arguments heard. Record perused. 4. Vehicle in question i.e. Toyota Corolla Car was seized by the Anti Vehicle Lifting Staff (AVLS), Gulberg, Lahore on suspicion under Section 550, Cr.P.C. on 27.11.2013 and was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for verification of its Writ Petition No. 9894 of 2014 2 chassis and engine numbers. The result of report of Forensic Science Agency dated 07.01.2014 (Annexure-B) reflects as under: “Result:  Chassis number before examination NZE 120-0038250.  Chassis number after examination NZE 120-0038250.  Chassis number has been cut & welded.  Engine number before examination 2545325  Engine number after examination 2545325 Conclusion:  The chassis number of the above said vehicle has been tampered.  The engine number of the above said vehicle has not been tampered.” 5. It is worth mentioning that as per (duplicate) Registration Book (Annexure-A) engine number has been mentioned ‘2197191’ whereas the report shows the same as ‘2545325’. The learned Area Magistrate, after summoning the relevant record from the concerned quarter, vide his orderdated 15.03.2014, dismissed the application of the petitioner while observing as under: “The report of police perused which shows that the vehicle was got examined through Forensic Science Agency and according to report of Forensic Science Agency, the Chassis No. cut and welded. The following are the Chassis No. as well as Engine No. On Registration Book On Police Report Chassis No. NZE-120-0038250 NZE-120-0038250 Engine No. 2197191 2545325 The above mentioned table shows that Chassis No. is the same in the police report as well as in registration certificate with the report of Forensic Science Agency but it is cut and welded whereas Engine No. is different. It clearly means that the Engine No. present in the vehicle is not the same which was registered alongwith vehicle. There is no order for changing of Engine in registration certificate produced by the petitioner nor he has produced any other document whereas the question is that if the petitioner purchased a cleared vehicle then what was the necessity to Writ Petition No. 9894 of 2014 3 temper his Chassis No. by way of cut and weld. The registration book produced is duplicate. Now one thing is clear that the vehicle which was took into custody from the petitioner is not same of which the petitioner has the document i.e. registration book in his hand. So there is no nexus of this vehicle with the petitioner. The petitioner kept the tempered vehicle in his custody without any ground or justification…. Though petitioner has no nexus with this vehicle. He may have some documents but the same are of some other vehicle and not this particular vehicle. Upon asking of this Court the petitioner states that he has no other document neither of purchase nor any paper of original file.” Admittedly the disputed vehicle does not have its original chassis number, even engine number is different from the one mentioned in the registration book produced by the petitioner. It has been noticed with concern that car was taken into possession by the Anti Vehicle Lifting Staff, Gulberg. Lahore on 27.11.2013 and duplicate registration book reflects transfer of vehicle in the name of the petitioner on 06.02.2014 when the same was in the police custody awaiting report of Forensic Science Laboratory regarding its identity. As far as argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that under Section 517, Cr.P.C. petitioner being last possessor of the vehicle is entitled for superdari of the same as of right, is misconceived. Under Section 516-A, Cr.P.C. “the court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial”. The words “may make such order” is sufficient to reflect the intention of law that Court can pass any appropriate order regarding the seized property as it thinks proper and a last possessor cannot claim superdari of the property as of right. In the case of Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Sargodha versus Ahmad Bakhsh (PLD 1970 Supreme Court 343) and Republic Motors Ltd. versus M. Anwar Writ Petition No. 9894 of 2014 4 and others (1980 S C M R 954), it has been held that “Property though to be restored to the party from whom it was taken yet such rule of law is not absolute and can be departed from under special circumstances.” Keeping in view the above referred legal position, I am of the considered view that any vehicle without specific identification cannot be allowed to play on roads as the same cannot be stamped to be of a particular owner that is a serious security threat and such like vehicles are being used in criminal activities including smuggling of narcotics and bomb blasts. It is high time to discourage allowing such vehicles to put on superdari on the basis of duplicate registration books of the stolen or destroyed vehicles. It has come to the notice of this Court in numerous cases that in official public auctions people bid and buy the discarded/damaged vehicles at exorbitant high prices only to get registration books and then these books are being used with tampered vehicles after getting duplicate registration books of the same and embossing identification marks with tampering techniques. These are the cases where courts have to take exception to the general rule of giving vehicles on superdari to their last possessor just in routine. Needless to add that in case of failure of an owner to establish his entitlement for superdari in cursory proceedings before the Court concerned, he has a right under the relevant law to establish his ownership before the Civil Court and if any such suit is filed the Civil Court concerned can pass a decree in favour of the actual owner of the property notwithstanding any observation made in the cursory proceedings of superdari of said vehicle by any Court. 6. Case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner 2005 SCMR 735, is of no help to the petitioner as in Writ Petition No. 9894 of 2014 5 that case, car was having its proper identification i.e. engine number and chassis number. In the case 2002 YLR 699, the identity of chassis of disputed vehicle was intact (not cut and welded as in this case). Matter regarding the vehicles with doubtful identity has been dealt with in the case of Ch. Maqbool Ahmed versus Customs, Federal Excise and Sales Tax, Appellate Tribunal and 3 others (2009 SCMR 226), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has approved the view of Customs Department that a vehicle with tampered chassis frame is liable to outright confiscation. Learned counsel for the petitioner remained unable to demonstrate existence of any valid ground justifying interference of this Court in the concurrent finding of both the courts below in its extra-ordinary exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. Resultantly, this writ petition being devoid of any force is dismissed. (Muhammad Anwaarul Haq) Judge *Kashif* Approved for reporting Judge