2023 M L D 319
[Balochistan]
Before Abdullah Baloch, J
SHAKIRULLAH ---Petitioner
Versus
The STATE and another ---Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 90 of 2021, decided on 8th September, 2021.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----S. 516- A---Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965), Ss. 2(24) & 32---Order
for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases ---Owner of vehicle ---
Scope ---Petitioner assailed rejection of his application under S. 516- A, Cr.P.C., for
superdari/release of vehicle--- Case of prosecution was that the petitioner while driving the
vehicle in question negligently and rashly hit the son of complainant, due to which he died---
Petitioner was claiming to be the owner and last possessor of the vehicle and prayed for its release on superdari ---Person in whose name the motor vehicle was registered was the owner
of said vehicle, which also included the transferee ---Transferee had to be duly registered
under S. 32 of the Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965--- Vehicle was not registered
in the petitioner's name ---Petitioner was only in possession of return file, which in no manner
could prove his ownership---Mere possession of original return file did not transfer ownership of a vehicle in terms of the Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965---Even otherwise, if the petitioner had purchased the vehicle in question from its previous owner, the same should have been transferred in his name within thirty days as provided under S. 32 of the Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, but this had not been done ---Application for
release of vehicle was rightly rejected by the Trial Court ---Revision petition was dismissed.
Amjad Ali Khan v. The State and others PLD 2020 SC 299 rel.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----S. 516 -A---Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases ---
Scope ---If the vehicle is required to be released on superdari, it shall be released to its owner.
Arsalan Tareen for Petitioner.
Abdul Kareem Malghani, State Counsel.
Date of hearing: 6th September, 2021.
JUDGMENT
ABDULLAH BALOCH, J. ---This judgment disposes of Criminal Revision Petition
No.90/2021 filed by the petitioner Shakirullah son of Rozi Khan, against the order dated 5th
August 2021 ("the impugned judgment") passed by learned Sessions Judge Mastung ("the trial Court") whereby the application under section 516- A, Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for
Superdari/release of Coach bearing registration No.FDS -5, was rejected.
2. Facts of the case are that on 15th April 2021, the complainant Abdul Wahid lodged
FIR No.15 of 2021, at Levies Station Wali Khan Mastung, under sections 320, 427, 337- G,
P.P.C., with the averments that on the day of occurrence he received information that the accident of his son took place at Mastung By- Pass and he sustained injuries. On such
information, he reached Mastung and saw that a coach bearing Registration No.FDS -05 Red
Color was parked at the corner of the road in damaged condition. On query it revealed that his son was shifted to Nawab Ghous Bakhsh Hospital Mastung, he rushed there and found the dead body of his son. According to complainant the incident took place due to rush and negligent driving of petitioner.
3. In the meantime, the petitioner filed an application under section 516- A, Cr.P.C. for
release of vehicle on Sueprdari, but the same was rejected, vide order dated 5th August 2021. Whereafter, instant petition has been filed.
4. Heard the learned counsel and perused the available record with the assistance of
learned counsel for parties. According to the case of prosecution that the petitioner Shakirullah whilst driving the vehicle in question negligently and rashly hit the son of
complainant, due to which he died. Now, the petitioner is claiming to be the owner and last possessor of vehicle in question and prayed for its release on superdari on the ground that the petitioner is in possession of original return file, which is enough to prove his ownership in respect of vehicle in question.
5. Be that as it may, it has been remained the consistent view of Superior Courts that in
case if the vehicle is required to be released on superdari, it shall only be released to its owner. Now question arises that as to how it can be ascertained that the claimant of vehicle is actually the owner of the same or otherwise. The word "Owner" is defined in section 2(24) of Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, which reads as under:
"Owner" means the person in whose name the motor vehicle is registered and includes -
(a) a transferee of the motor vehicle from such persons;
(b) in relation to motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire -purchase agreement, the
person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement; and
(c) where the person in whose name the motor vehicle is registered or the person in possession of the motor vehicle under a hire -purchase agreement is -
(i) a minor, the guardian of such minor;
(ii) a company registered under the Companies Act, 1913, the directors of such
company;
(iii) a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, or under any law
relating to co -operative societies, the principal officer of such society by whatever
designation known;
(iv) a firm, all the partners of such a firm; and
(v) any other association of persons, all the members of such association:
Provided that where such company, firm, society or other association of persons has given notice to the registering authority that has nominated a director, partner, office bearer, member or officer, as the case may be, of the company, firm, society or association to be the owner of the vehicle for the purposes of this Ordinance, the person so nominated shall alone be deemed to be the owner for the purpose of this Ordinance."
6. Bare reading of above cited provision clearly provides that a person in whose name
the motor vehicle is registered is the owner of said vehicle, which also includes the transferee. Transferee must be duly registered under section 32 of Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, which reads as under:
"32. Transfer of ownership.---(1) Within thirty days of the transfer of ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter, the transferee shall report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he ordinarily resides and shall forward the certificate of registration of the vehicle to that registering authority together with the prescribed fee in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered therein."
7. It appears from the record that though the petitioner is claiming to be the owner of
vehicle in question, but however, the fact remains that the vehicle is not registered in his name rather it has been registered on the name of one Asmat Ullah and under the law said Asmatullah being the legal and lawful owner could have approached for release of the vehicle in question. The petitioner is only in possession of return file, which in no manner can prove his ownership. Mere possession of original return file does not transfer ownership of a vehicle in terms of ibid Ordinance. Even otherwise, if the petitioner had purchased the vehicle in question from its previous owner, the same should have been transferred in his name within thirty days as provided under section 32 of ibid Ordinance, but this has not been done so, thus rightly the application of petitioner for release of vehicle on superdari was rejected by the trial Court through the impugned order, which otherwise is not open for interference of this Court. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Amjad Ali Khan v. The State and others PLD 2020 Supreme Court 299. The relevant portion is reproduced as follows:
"12. Coming to the facts of the present case, the first and the foremost condition is that the petitioner must be the "owner" of the vehicle. "Owner" is defined in section 2(24) of MVO to mean a person in whose name the motor vehicle is registered and includes the transferee. Transferee must be duly registered under MVO. In the present case, the petitioner moved an application for seeking superdari of the Vehicle on 20.11.2015, described himself as the owner of the Vehicle, but at the time, he only
had an open transfer letter. An open transfer letter is not a valid document of title and
it does not transfer ownership of a vehicle in terms of MVO. Subsequently, the Vehicle was duly registered in the name of the petitioner on 21.01.2016. This was too late as at the time of alleged commission of the offence, the seizure of the Vehicle and the registration of the criminal case on 20.08.2015 the petitioner was not the owner of
the Vehicle. An applicant must be the owner of the vehicle prior to the commission of
the offence. The registration certificate of the Vehicle shows that the original owner
of the Vehicle was Muslim Khan, who sold the Vehicle to Asif Kamal and then finally the Vehicle was transferred in the name of the petitioner on 21.01.2016. Asif Kamal, was the owner of the vehicle at the time of the offence, but did not approach the court to seek release of the Vehicle. On 20.08.2015, when the petitioner made application for superdari of the Vehicle, he was not the owner of the Vehicle and, therefore, does not pass the requirement laid down in proviso to section 32 of CNSA."
For the above reasons, the criminal revision being devoid of merits is dismissed.
SA/160/Bal. Revision Petition dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.