Samiullah vs State

Judgment Sheet

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

JUDGMENT

Cr. M/BA No.215-P/2014 Date of hearing......25/02/2015

Sami Ullah .....Vs.........The State Petitioner(s) by Mr. Qaisar Baig Advocate.

Respondent(s) by Ms. Sabeeha Iqbal Standing Counsel for the State.

ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J:- Through instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of impugned orders dated 29.10.2014 and 23.09.2014 of the learned lower Courts whereby his petitions for return of vehicle bearing registration No.HT-286 Islamabad were rejected.

2.The vehicle in question was taken into possession by the local police u/s 523/550 Cr.PC vide Mad No.21 dated 4.7.2014, on the basis of suspicion of being stolen one and it was disclosed that the same is stolen property in case FIR No.724 dated 27.10.2005 u/s 283/285/143/145/341 PPC of P.S. Civil Line, Gujrat.

3.The petitioner approached the lower Court for the custody of vehicle in question being its lawful owner but his petition was dismissed vide order dated 23.09.2014. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Peshawar who also dismissed the revision petition of petitioner vide order dated 29.10.2014, hence the instant quashment petition.

Arguments heard record perused.

4.Perusal of record reveals that the vehicle in question was taken into custody by local police on 4.7.2014 u/s 523/550 Cr.PC whereas the document/stamp/deed of purchase annexed with the file reveals that it was drafted/prepared on 16.8.2014 after more than one month of its seizing which means that the said deed has been prepared after more than one month of seizure of the vehicle.

Besides, registration documents are also not in the name of petitioner nor in the name of the person from whom the petitioner allegedly purchased the same.

4.The vehicle in question is admittedly a stolen property of case FIR No.407 of P.S. Civil Line Gujrat and it has been recovered from one Shahid Ali s/o Ali Ahmad r/o Wazir Abad, Khaksar Mardan whose link with the petitioner has also not been established that how the vehicle went in the custody of said person or it was handed over to him by petitioner for which no evidence is available on record. At present petitioner failed to make out a case of his ownership regarding the vehicle in question therefore, the same cannot be given to him on superdari.

5.In view of what has been observed above, this petition being without substance is dismissed.

Announced.

Dt.25.02.2015.

JUDGE

“A.Qayum”