MUHAMMAD ZADA vs State Ss — 2021 YLR 1415 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD ZADA VS State Ss. 516-a, 523 & 550---Superdari of case property---Scope---Seizure of non-customs paid vehicles having tempered, welded, refitted, re-stamped chassis plates under Ss.550/523, Cr.P.C.---Superdari of vehicles, refusal of---Petitioner applied for supurdari of the vehicles but the Magistrate rejected the applications and District Judge also rejected the revision petitions---Petitioners, inter alia, contended that they were bona fide purchasers of the vehicles in questions and there was no evidence on record which could show that the vehicles were either stolen or used in any crime---Validity---Vehicles were allegedly seized by the police under Ss.523/550, Cr.P.C. and during inquiry under S.156(3), Cr.P.C., the chassis plates of the vehicles in question were found tempered, welded, refitted, re-stamped, not decipherable for rubbing off their chassis plates, etc., according to the respective reports of the Forensic Science Laboratory---Presumption of truth was attached to the Forensic Science Laboratory Reports---Some of the vehicles, though, were registered with different Excise and Taxation Offices, however, after the alleged purchase by the petitioners, most of them had not so far been transferred in their names---Section 23 of the Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, restricted use of the vehicle which was either not registered/transferred by the owner in a specified period of time from the date of its purchase---Owner was bound to transfer the vehicle within thirteen days of its purchase, however, in none of the cases, the law pertaining to registration of vehicles had been followed---Upon completion of inquiry/investigation in the matter and examination of the vehicle through Forensic Science Laboratory, the police completed its job---Police was not required to find out that who had tampered the vehicle because it was not the act of an ordinary person---Purchaser was required to take due care at the time of purchase of the vehicle---Impugned orders were based on correct and legal observations of the courts below to which no exception could be taken--- Petitions being meritless were dismissed accordingly.

MUHAMMAD ZADA vs State Ss — 2021 YLR 1415 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2021 YLR