MUHAMMAD AMIR IRSHAD S/O IRSHAD ALI (Appellant) VS THE STATE & ORS (Respondent)

\5s

\ PRESENTED .J.i,l I1l ZR:..e.8:?R?*.

F" Wre FION'BLE HIGH C OURI 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 Appiicant

VERSUS

1.. The State

cou

2.The Station House Officer, ii( 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 MI SCETLANE 0US AFPLICfiT ICIFI UNDER SECTIOIV 551-l1Cr.P.C., 1898

ffi l 5q

j

I

KARACHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, AT

Criminal Misc. ApplicationNo'875 of 2024 nt4"ftr-^"a a-, i.=nua "s' fne State & Others]

For ApPlicant Mr. Aftab Ali Wasaru advocate For State: Mr. Mumtaz AliShah, A'P'G' Sindh' Date of hearing: 77.03.2025

Date of judgment: 77.03.2025

IUD GMENT

jan Ali ]unej o, !r The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application urrder Section 55L-A of the Code of Criminal Amir Irshad Procedure, 1898, has been filed by Muhammad against the (hereinafter referred to as the "Applicant') impugned order dated 22-07-2024 passed by the leamed \)R 7 Additional District ]udge-MII, Malir' Karachi' in Criminal oo

(3 Miscellaneous Application adsing out of Session Case No' 1402

g"\ oI 2019. The Applicant seeks the'issuance of a No Objection Regis Lration Certificate (NOC) in resPect of a vehicle bearing o -r{ Engine No'Z- No. BJT-427, Toyota Corolla GLI' Model 2017' g4sgg,ChassisNo.NZE170R-4121154'Horsepower1300CC' Color Silver (hereinafter referred to as the "vehicle in

question'r).

The Applicant claims to be the lawful owner and

it from possessor of the vehicle in question' having Purchased Mr. Muneer Ahmed Jomani on 15-09-20L8 for a total sale was made in' consideration of Rs. 30,18,000/-' The Payment possession of the installments, and the Applicant took physical vehicie on the date of purchase' The original title documents'

includini the NOC issued by Bank Alfalah on31'0\-2022'were possession of handed over to the Applicant, who has been in

\bo

t 2 tr

I

entered into an the vehicle since 15-09-2018' The eppticlt agreement with a rent-a-car comPany for the monthly hiring of this period' FIR the vehicle at Rs. 45,000/- per month' Durihg Sohail r:nder No. 78 of 2019 was lodged against one $rsal 2073' at Poiice Station Section 23(1XA) of the Sindh Arms Act' was allegedly Airpor! Knrachi, in which the vehicle in qufstion party' Sohail Jamii' made case ProPerty. Subsequentiv' a third 90 of 2019 under filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application \o' eas e of the vehicle Section 515-4., CI.P.C', seeking the IC I vehicle' The ot superdari,claiming to be the last possessor of the the veltcle was application was allowed on 02-08-2019, and handed over to Sohail iamil'

The Applicant asserts that he was o'lu**" of the FIR or

the Excise ancl the proceedings until he was informed lby involved in FIR No' Taxation Office @TO) that the vehicle was application before the i'7A ot2019. The Applicant then filed an

.L

j.i"r"rr"a Additional District Judge-VI[' Mdfir' Karachi' for the * vide the impugned tr' .I )iirrrut"u of an NOC, which was dismissed orderdated22-07-2024;TheApplicantchaiiengesthe impugned orfler on the grounds that it {aras passed without and Possessor appreciating the fact that he is the lawful owner a misreading and of the vehicle, and that the order is based bn , The Applicant non-reading of the material evidence on rdcord' District further conten ds that the learned Additional ]udge including the failed to ISS1le notices to the concemed parties' SHO, 10, and ETO, and dismissed the a$plication summarily entire material without considering the factual positio. uLa the

A

record.

I

that the

4.The lealned counsel for the Applicalt argued the vehicle in Applicant is the lawful orn'ner and Possessor of Ahmed Jumani question, having purchasecl it from Mr' Muneer

\trl

,I: -

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 lIO, and ETO, before the concerned partieq, including -t the SHO,

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, particular'Iy when the vehicle is no longer requir ed AS CAS co property.and the proceedings have been abated d u e to

I

death of the accused. Lastly, the leamed cgunsel has prayed l allowing the present Criminal Misc. Application. '/.b) i7

5 Per contra, the leamed APG argue that the Applicant has no locus standi to seek the issuance of an NOC, as the

X

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, therefore, is not entitled to the issuance of pn NOC. The learned

lbz

I

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 APG argued that the Apptcant must first establish his lawfu1 possession of the vehicle before seeking the issuance of an NOC. The leamed APG contended that 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 co prior to this, an individual named Suhail iJameel had filed + { application r:nder Section 516-A of the Criminal Proced x Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking the restoration of vehicle No. BJT-427 () i; 5 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

llo9

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 it Cr.P.C. justice, in

I

., this context, refers to the administration land dispensation of

I

'i lustice by the courts, not as an abstract o! intangible concePt' Reference is made to the case of SVed amber 1,li Shah o.

I

Prozsince of Sindh and others (2024 S 1123) in support of 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 relief sought. The:efore, the instant Miscellaneous ,k Application is dismissed.