IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,

LARKANA

Crl. Revision Appln. No. S- 09 of 2024.

Muhammad Ayoub. ……..…..Applicant.

Versus

The State. ….......Respondent.

Mr. Ali Raza Pathan, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General.

Date of hearing: 14.03.2024.

Date of order: 14.03.2024.

ORDER

Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J- Through instant criminal revision application, applicant Muhammad Ayoob has called in question the order dated 10.1.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Shikarpur, whereby he has dismissed an application filed by applicant in terms of Section 516-A Cr.P.C, for return/ restoration of “Nissan” Truck bearing Registration No.TKK-172, Chasis No. TD 10 NHR 01429, Engine No. 081493, Model 1987, in his favor on the basis of “Superdari”. The case was pending before the Court of 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, vide Sessions Case No. 127 of 2011 re; State v. Muhammad Saleh and others.

2. The background of the case is that, on 22.07.2010 complainant Raja Qadeer Akram Butt Security Officer of PARCO Station-3 Shikarpur lodged F.I.R No.43 of 2010 with P.S Madeji, stating therein that accused persons, namely, Muhammad Sallah, Niaz, Habibullah, Noor Muhammad alias Nooral, Asghar, Rehmatullah and Abdul Razzak committed theft of oil from PARCO pipeline and fired upon complainant party thereby deterred them from discharging their official duty, so also, caused damages to the pipeline of PARCO.

3. It appears that on completion of usual investigation the police filed challan of the case. However, due to non-appearance of the prosecution witnesses the case has been ordered to be kept in “abeyance”, vide Order dated 22.11.2019 passed by learned trial Court. It further appears that, applicant filed an application under Section 516-A Cr.P.C vide Crl. Misc. Appln. No. nil of 2023 in Sessions case No.127 of 2011 before learned trial Court and after hearing the parties the learned trial Court dismissed such application vide impugned order. Hence, instant revision application has been filed by the applicant before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant mainly contended that, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge is contrary to law and the facts, as such not sustainable and liable to be set aside, as it has resulted into miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel further contended that Applicant is owner of the vehicle-in-question by virtue of its purchase, it stands registered in his name. Learned counsel has placed on record photocopy of Registration papers of vehicle. Per learned counsel, in-fact the vehicle in question was apprehended by the police and when the driver did not grease their palm with money, the police in collusion with complainant involved the truck in question in aforesaid case/ crime. He further contended that the vehicle-in-question is lying at police-station in open sky since long time and since it is machinery therefore, requires proper care and maintenance, which is impossible at the hands of police. Learned counsel further added that applicant is not the accused in the case and there is no any other claimant of the vehicle and applicant undertakes to produce the vehicle before the trial Court, if and when required. Learned counsel further added that, , when the applicant-owner of the vehicle is not accused in the case and he undertook to produce the vehicle as and when required, the vehicle should be handed over/ released to him on Superdari basis and that the applicant is not the accused in the case, nor he had any knowledge about commission of the offence as alleged in aforesaid F.I.R, therefore, there is no bar to release the vehicle in question to applicant on “superdari”. Per learned counsel, there is no likelihood of re-opening of the case in near future, therefore, it will be futile exercise to keep the vehicle for indefinite period and its retention for an indefinite period will not serve any fruitful purpose and on the contrary, it will result deterioration and devastation of the vehicle. In support of his contentions learned counsel relied upon case of Ajjab Khan v. The State (2005 P.Cr.L.J 1510), Muhammad Hanif v. The State and others (2011 SCMR 1471) and Muhammad Akhtar Ali v. Additional Sessions Judge, Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh and others (2023 SCMR 711).

5. Learned D.P.G. appearing for the State in view of the submission made by learned counsel does not support the impugned order and concedes for grant of instant revision application.

6. There is no denial to the fact that applicant is owner of the truck in question and it stands registered in his name. The applicant is not the accused in the case and there is no any other claimant of the vehicle. The applicant also undertook to produce the vehicle before the trial Court, if and when required. Moreover, the case has been kept in “abeyance” since 22.11.2019 due to non-appearance of the prosecution witnesses, as such there appears no probability of re-opening of the case in near future; therefore, it will be futile exercise to keep the vehicle for indefinite period.

7. In view of the foregoing and no objection extended by learned D.P.G. appearing for the State, instant criminal revision application is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 10.01.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Shikarpur, is set-aside. The vehicle in question i.e. Nissan Truck bearing Registration No.TKK-172, Chasis No. TD 10 NHR 01429, Engine No. 081493, Model 1987, is directed to be restored/ returned to the applicant by the learned trial Court on “Superdari” subject to furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of rupees one million and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Judge

Ansari