Maqsood Ahmad Vs The State

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

BAI\NU BENCH

(Judicial Department)

W.P No.744-Bl2025

Maqsood Ahmad Vs. The State.

Present: Mr. Shahid Khan, Baneash, Advocate for oailioner. Mr. Rizwon Ullah llazir, Advocote for resoondent, ffhrough Yideo-link) Mr. Naiibullah Khan, A.A.G fot lhe Stale, Date of hearing: 05.05.2026

JUDGMENT

SABIT ULLAH J:- Through the instant

Constitutional Petition instituted under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has called in question the legality, propriety and correctness of order dated 27.09.2025 passed by the leamed Judicial Magistrate-Il, Bannu as well as judgment dated 17.10.2025 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-ll, Bannu whereby the leamed Courts below directed seizure of motor vehicle bearing Registration No.LE-l94-5757 afi parking of the same in Court premises as case proPerty in connection with FIR No.546 dated 15.11.2024 rcgistered under Sections 420, 468 and 471 PPC at Police Station Kakki, District Bannu.

The petitioner has prayed for setting aside of the sher Qoduttah iteno' (D.B) IION'BLE MR JUSTICE MUHAMMAI' TARIO AFRIDI IION'BLf, MR" JUSTICE SABI'I'TILLAH KHAN

aforesaid impugned orders and restoration of custody of the vehicle in his favour.

2.Facts necessary for disposal of the instant petition, as gathered from the record, are that the petitioner on 16.06.2024 submitted a written application before S.H.O Police Station Kakki alleging therein that he had purchased the motor vehicle in question from one MalakZia Ullah after making payment of Rs.24,00,000/- on the spot while the remaining amount was agreed to be paid subsequently, however, the said seller dishonestly failed to honour the transaction and allegedly re-sold the vehicle to another claimant namely Ihsanullah. Pursuant thereto, notices were issued to the concerned persons but none of them could produce original ownership documents before the local police. The vehicle was thereafter recovered by the police from Mushk Alam Bargain near market and was taken into possession under Sections 523 and 550 Cr.P.C vide Naqal Mad No.22 dated I 6.06.2024. Tlne petitioner subsequently instituted superdari proceedings before the leamed Judicial Magistrate-Il, Bannu who vide order dated 27.06.2024 entrusted interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner subject to furnishing surety bonds. The record further sherQoduttahsteno' (D.B) HON'BLf, MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD TARIO AFRIDI

HON'BLE MR. JI]STICE SABIT TJLLAH KHAN

reveals that rival claimant Ihsanullah withdrew his own superdari petition and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on the same date. It is also bome out from the record that the leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor requested filing of inquiry proceedings initiated under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C on the ground that during inquiry no cognizable offence had surfaced and the vehicle was found clear from criminal defect. Consequently, the leamed trial Court vide order dated 19.10.2024 filed the inquiry proceedings and cancelled the superdari bonds of the petitioner, whereafter possession of the vehicle continued with the petitioner through judicial sanction.

The maffer, however, did not attain quietus. Respondent Sahibzada Muhammad Israr, after considerable lapse of time, instituted criminal revision before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bannu seeking setting aside of orders dated 27.06.2024, 19.10.2024 and ( 29.10.2024. The leamed revisional Court vide judgment dated 08.07.2025 partially allowed the revision petition, set aside only the order dated 27.06.2024 and remanded the matter to the leamed Magistrate for fresh decision of superdari proceedings. During the interregnum, the petitioner succeeded in transferring the vehicle in his own name and allegedly sold the same onward to a third Sh.t)duttahsteno' (D.B) HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MUHAMMAD TARIO AFRIDI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAB]T ULI.AH KHAN

person. Thereafter, respondent Sahibzada Muhammad Israr moved an application dated 02.06.2025 before the leamed Judicial Magistrate-Il, Bannu alleging that the petitioner had fraudulently transferred the vehicle in his own name through forged documents and that FIR No.546 dated 15.11.2024 under Sections 420, 468 and 47 I PPC had already been registered in this regard. It was further alleged that the petitioner, being a Government servant, had also committed offence punishable under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Comrption Act, 1947.

The learned Judicial Magistrate-Il, Bannu after hearing the parties partially allowed the said application vide order dated 27 .09 .2025 and directed seizure of the vehicle and parking thereof in Court premises as case property.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.13/CrR/2025 before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bannu, however, the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 17.10.2025. The learned revisional Court maintained the impugned order by observing that the vehicle constituted case property directly connected with the allegations contained in the FIR and that preservation of the same was necessary for purposes of investigation and trial. Hence, the instant Constitutional Petition.

SherQodrttah^teno' [D.B] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD TARIO AFRIDI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SABIT ULLAH KHAN

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned orders passed by the leamed Courts below are illegal, arbitrary, without lawful authority and based upon gross misreading and non-reading of the available material. It was argued that the vehicle had already been entrusted to the petitioner through lawful judicial process and thereafter inquiry proceedings initiated under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C had culminated in favour of the petitioner when the police itself found no cognizable offence in relation to the vehicle. It was submitted that once inquiry proceedings stood filed and superdari bonds were cancelled by judicial order, the petitioner's possession attained legal sanctity and could not subsequently be disturbed merely on the basis ofbald allegations. Leamed counsel further argued that the criminal case relied upon by respondent No.3 is still pending adjudication and no finding regarding fraud, forgery or dishonest transfer has yet been recorded by any competent Court of law. According to learned counsel, the leamed Magistrate acted mechanically in directing fresh seizure ofthe vehicle without recording any cogent finding demonstrating imminent danger of concealment, disappearance or misuse of the property. It was lastly contended that custody proceedings ate purely stetu' T Sher Oottutoh [D.B)

interlocutory and tentative in nature and cannot be converted into punitive proceedings before determination of criminal liability.

4.Conversely, leamed Additional Advocate General assisted by leamed counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 supported the impugned orders and argued that serious allegations of fraud, forgery and dishonest transfer of ownership are involved in the matter. It was submitted that the petitioner managed transfer of the vehicle in connivance with concemed authorities despite pendency of dispute and criminal proceedings. It was further argued that the vehicle constitutes case property directly connected with the alleged offences and therefore preservation thereof is necessary for proper adjudication during trial' Leamed Law Officer contended that both the leamed Courts below have concurently exercised lawful jurisdiction and no constitutional infirmity warranting interference by this Court is made out.

5.We have heard leamed counsel for the parties at considerable length and have gone through the available record with their able assistance'

DI

Sher Qoduttoh steno' (D.B)

6.The principal question requiring determination in the instant petition is whether the leamed Courts below were justified in directing seizure of the vehicle and its parking in Court premises as case property despite the admitted fact that the vehicle had earlier been released in favour of the petitioner through judicial process and remained continuously in his possession for a considerable period thereafter. It is by now well-settled that proceedings relating to superdari or interim custody of property are merely tentative and interlocutory in natwe. Such proceedings neither determine title nor confer permanent ownership rights upon any person. The purpose underlying Sections 516- A, 523 and 550 Cr.P.C is only to ensure proper custody and preservation of properfy pending inquiry, investigation or trial. Simultaneously, it is equally settled that valuable property, particularly motor vehicles, should ordinarily not be subjected to unnecessary deterioration, depreciation and decay by prolonged parking in open spaces of police stations or Court premises. Superior Courts have repeatedly deprecated the practice of converting valuable property into scrap merely because criminal proceedings remaln pending for indefinite periods shet Qodu atusteko+ (D.B) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD TARIO AFRIDI HON'BLf, MR" JUSTICf, SABIT ULLAH KHAN

7.The record reveals that after recovery of the vehicle through Naqal Mad No.22 dated 16.06.2024, custody thereof was entrusted to the petitioner vide judicial order dated 27.06.2024. Signihcantly, rival claimant Ihsanullah himself withdrew his superdari claim and the police during inquiry under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C found no cognizable offence in relation to the vehicle.

Consequently, inquiry proceedings were filed vide order dated 19.10.2024 and the petitioner's superdari bonds were cancelled. Prima facie, therefore, possession of the petitioner attained legal sanctity through judicial process and continued unintemrpted for a substantial period. No doubt, subsequent registration of FIR No.546 dated 15.11.2024 under Sections 420, 468 and 471 PPC gave rise to serious allegations regarding fraudulent transfer of ownership and forgery of documents. However, such allegations admittedly remain subject matter of trial and final adjudication before the competent criminal Court.

Mere pendency of criminal proceedings OI unsubstantiated allegations of fraud could not by themselves authorize mechanical seizure of the vehicle afresh particularly when the same had remained in lawful possession of the petitioner under authority of judicial orders. The learned Courts below, with utmost respect, Shet Qoduttoh steno' tD.B) HON'BLf, MR. JUSTICf, MUHAMMAD TARTO AFRIDI

IION'BLE MR. JUSTICE SABIT ULLAH KHAN

appear to have proceeded on the assumption that mere mention of the vehicle in the FIR automatically rendered it "case property" liable to seizure and indefinite retention. Such approach, in our considered view, is not in consonance with the true scope and scheme of Sections 5l and 550 Cr.P.C read with Sections 523 and 516-4 Cr.P.C. Section 550 Cr,P.C empowers a police officer to seize property alleged or suspected to have been stolen or found under circumstances creating suspicion of commission of any offence, however, such power is neither absolute nor mechanical in nature' The exercise of such authority necessarily requires objective satisfaction founded upon lawful inquiry and reasonable material connecting the property with commission of offence' Likewise, Section 5l Cr.P.C, though primarily dealing with search of arrested persons and seizure of articles found upon such search, embodies the broader procedural safeguard that seizure affecting proprietary rights must strictly conform to law, faimess and necessity and cannot be exercised arbitrarily or punitively' Before directing seizure or retention of any property, the investigating whether agency is under legal obligation to first ascertain the property genuinely falls within the legal contemplation of "case property", namely whether the

T T

shet Ooduttohlstehor (D B)

sarne ts alleged or suspected to have been stolen, fraudulently obtained, forged, fabricated or otherwise directly connected with commission of offence in a legally sustainable manner. Such determination is fundamentally the responsibility of the Investigating Ofhcer acting strictly within the parameters prescribed by Sections 51 and 550 Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer is required to undertake lawful inquiry, veriff ownership trail, examine transfer documents through competent authorities, collect evidence regarding alleged forgery and thereafter arrive at an objective conclusion as to whether the vehicle truly constitutes case property. Such determination cannot rest merely upon rival allegations or presumptions unsupported by investigative findings. The powers contemplated under Section 550 Cr.P.C are intended to aid investigation and preservation of property genuinely connected with commission of offence and not to inflict punitive consequences before adjudication by a competent Court. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment reported as 2024 PCT.LJ 113 titled Sheikh Rasheed Ahmad Vs. S.H.O Police Station Kohsar Islamabad and two others wherein it was held that:- "When the appellant filed an application for interim custody of the Vehicles, the Incharge Police Station submitted a report wherein it was mentioned that the she, Sadu ohlsteno' (D.B) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUIIAMMAD TARIO AFRIDI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SABIT ULLAH KHAN

tL

Vehicles were seized under section 550, Cr.P.C. For the sake of convenience, section 550, Cr.P.C. is reproduced below.-

"550. Powers of police to seize property suspected to be stolen: Any police fficer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission, of any offence, such police fficer, if subordinate to; the officer incharge of a police station, shall forthteith report the seizure to that ofiicer."

9.Bare perusal of the above reproduced provision of law shows that under section 550, Cr.P.C. property can only be seized subject to the conditions if, it is alleged to hqve been stolen, or found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. In the instant case, the Vehicles were parked within the premises of the house of appellant and the police officials had no information regarding any incident of theft of like Vehicles. Furthermore, substantidl information could have been collected regarding presence of the Vehicles and their ownership from the persons present dt the residence of the appellant during raid, so as to avoid any unwatanted exercise of authority by the police ofricials.

10.The learned Single Judge was apprised by the Incharge Police Station Kohsar that initially the vehicles were seized under section 550, Cr.P.C. but later they were made case property in FIR No.376/2023 (the one earlier registered against protestors). The term "case property" means property regarding which an offence appears to hwe been committed or which appears to have been used in the commission of offence. Case property is preserved by the investigating agency so that it can be produced before the trial court as evidence/proof of the commission of crime against the accused person. The tridl court is then competent to decide the question of interim custody of'case property' during pendency of the trial. The expressions "interim custody", "inlerim disposal" and "superdari" are interchangeably used in criminal procedural law. As highlighted above, the essential features of the "case property't are that (i) it should have been used in the commission of offence, (ii) an offence appears to have been committed in she. Addu ah rteno" tD.Bl HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD TARIO AFRIDI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SABIT ULLAH KHAN

respect of the sdid property, (iii) it is the property which was stolen and then recovered from the accused persons, and (iv) it itself is an evidence of the commission of offence".

Similarly, reliance is also placed upon the judgment reported as 2025 PCT.LJ 748 titled Rameez Iqbal Vs. The State and others wherein it was held that:- '10. h is well settled principle that every criminal case is required to be seen in the light of its own peculiar facts and circumstances. In the present case, subject vehicle was impounded by the police under section 550 Cr.P.C. As mentioned above, there is no contest on the point thqt neither the subject vehicle is a stolen property nor involved in any criminal case, therefore, it is to be seen as to whether in such eventually, subject whicle could be impounded under section 550 Cr.P.C which reads as under:- "550. Powers of police to seize property suspected to be stolen : Any police fficer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission, of any offince, such police ofiicer, d subordinate lo; the ofJicer incharge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that ofiicer."

I 1. Bare perusal of above provision of law shows that property can only be seized subject to the conditions if it is alleged to have been stolen, or found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence ".

8.Similarly, Section 51 Cr.P.C mandates observance of procedural discipline while exercising powers affecting possession and proprietary interests.

Therefore, before depriving a person of possession of valuable movable property already entrusted through shetQodrttdh/st<ho' tD.Bl EON'BLE MR. ruSTICE MUHAMMAD TARIO AFRIDI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SABIT ULLAH KHAN

judicial process, the investigating agency and the Courts are under obligation to satisfr themselves that such drastic action is legally warranted, proportionate and indispensable for purposes of investigation or trial.

9.We have further noticed that the leamed Magistrate while passing the impugned order dated 27.09.2025 failed to record any cogent finding demonstrating imminent danger of concealment, disappearance, alienation or tampering of the vehicle so as to justiff seizure afresh. Likewise, the learned revisional Court failed to appreciate that custody proceedings are not punitive in nature and cannot be converted into a mode of harassment prior to determination of criminal liability. Admittedly, no material was brought on record showing misuse of custody by the petitioner or violation of any undertaking furnished before the Court. It also requires reiteration that rights of the parties regarding ownership, title, genuineness of transfer documents or allegations of forgery are yet to be conclusively determined by the competent trial Court after recording evidence.

Observations made during custody proceedings cannot prejudice either party nor can interim arangements ShetOodutlohtsteno' (D.B) HON'BLf, MN. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD TARIO AFRIDI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICf, SABIT ULLAH KHAN

t4

regarding possession be treated as final adjudication of proprietary rights.

10.In view ofwhat has been discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 27.09.2025 passed by the leamed Judicial Magistrate-Il, Bannu as well as judgment dated 17.10.2025 rendered by the leamed Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bannu suffer from material illegality, jurisdictional defect and improper exercise of discretion.

The leamed Courts below failed to appreciate that before treating the vehicle as case property and directing its seizure, it was incumbent upon the investigating agency to first strictly proceed in accordance with Sections 5l and 550 Cr.P.C and determine through lawful investigation whether the vehicle in question genuinely falls within the legal meaning and scope of case property.

Consequently, this Constitutional Petition is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 17.10.2025 passed by the leamed Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bannu as well as order dated 27.09.2025 passed by the leamed Judicial Magistrate-Il, Bannu are hereby set aside. The Investigating Officer of the case is directed to strictly adhere to the provisions contained in Sections 51 and 550 shet Odduttohsteno' [D B) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUIIAMMAD TARIO AFRIDI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SABIT ULLAH KIIAN

Vs:

Arman Ullah etc:

Sabir Jamil

Vs:

Arman Ullah etc:

Date of hearing Cr.P.C and to proceed into the matter strictly in with law by first determining, on the basis of For petitione r: Mr. accordance Farooq Nawaz, Khattak, Date of hearing advocate.

material collected during investigation, whether the For petitione For r:

respondents: Mr.

Nemo Khattak, No.LE-194-5757 falls Nawaz, Registration (in motion)' Farooq vehicle bearing advocate.

within the legal meaning of "case property". Till such 't'****rt:t For respondents: Nemo (in determination, motion)' lawful custody/superdari of the vehicle Vide detailed common shall remain with the petitioner subject to furnishing fresh 't'****rt:t judgment of today placed on B.A.

superdari satisfaction of the leamed trial to the bondsNo, Vide detailed common Court. The petitioner shall neither alienate nor create any (Muhammad Vs The Sherplaced onState B.A. etc), the tnstarfi

No, in judgment of today the vehicle during pendency of third-party interest

bail cancellation criminal proceedings application, 1,€, shall produce the same before and No.10- (Muhammad Sher Vs The State etc), the tnstarfi the Investigating Officer or the leamed trial Court as and 8,12025 is hereby dismissed bail nlbninie.

cancellation application, 1,€, No.10- when required.

11.nlbninie.

8,12025 is hereby dismissed Needless to observe that observations made 07.01.202s.

'Inrdnulldh PS' herein are tentative in nature and shall not influence the leamed trial Court while deciding the criminal case on 07.01.202s.

(S,B) Hon'ble Mi lastlcc Abdal Fayaz 'Inrdnulldh PS' merits.

-Sd- tq- Announced.

(S,B) Hon'ble Mi lastlcc Judge Abdal Fayaz 05.05.2026 tlq

JADGE

-Sd- Judge

JUD

o

o ,-( k L sc l$t Shet Oadsttdh/stenoa (D B) Roo 6e oourt