Summary: Superdari of Vehicles:Vehicle having tampered, welded or refitted chassis plates cannot be allowed to ply on road.

Summary: Background:The petitioner, Mohammad Ilyas, sought the release of his vehicle, a Toyota Saloon Car, impounded by the police under FIR No.13/2019. The vehicle was seized in connection with an offense under Section 9-B of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act (CNSA) 1997. Mohammad Ilyas filed a criminal revision petition under Section 439-A of the Cr.P.C. after his initial application for the vehicle's release was dismissed by the Sessions Judge Gilgit.----Issues:Whether the petitioner, as the owner and last possessor of the vehicle, is entitled to its custody on superdari.Whether the vehicle's continued detention by the police serves any useful purpose after the completion of the investigation.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Hon'ble Judge Ali Baig held that the petitioner, being the bona fide owner and last possessor of the vehicle, is entitled to its custody on superdari. The court observed that no rival claimant had come forward to claim ownership of the vehicle. It was also noted that detaining the vehicle at the police station would not serve any useful purpose, especially since the investigation was complete. Prolonged detention could lead to the vehicle's deterioration. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the police were directed to release the vehicle to the petitioner upon furnishing an undertaking to produce the vehicle in court when required and not to sell it until the case is disposed of.----Citations/Precedents:Section 9-B of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997Section 439-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)Section 516-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)

Summary: Scope of revision under Section 45A of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011--The Punjab Food Authority framed the Punjab Pure Food Regulations, 2018, under the Food Authority Act. A business place, 'Amanat Khoya Point,' was inspected and found producing Khoya that did not meet prescribed standards. The Food Safety Officer seized various items, leading to an FIR. The Special Court dismissed Respondent No.1's application for superdari, but the Additional Sessions Judge accepted the revision petition. The petitioner argued that the Food Authority Act excludes revisional jurisdiction, making the order void. The respondent contends that Section 435 Cr.P.C. empowered the Sessions Judge to review lower court orders. The court examined constitutional provisions, emphasizing that jurisdiction must align with the Constitution and law. The court scrutinizes the Food Authority Act's Section 45A(2), finding it exclusionary but requiring explicit language. It compared the case to earlier rulings on ouster clauses and distinguishes revisional and supervisory jurisdictions. Referring to previous judgments, the court concluded that Section 435 Cr.P.C. applies to any inferior criminal court, irrespective of its establishment under a special law. The court stressed that the express exclusion of specific powers implies their exclusion, but supervisory powers under Sections 435 and 439 Cr.P.C. remain intact for checking correctness, legality, or propriety of findings or orders.

Summary: Background:Abdul Mutallib, the petitioner, filed an application under Section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) in Cr. Misc. No.04/2020 before the Hon'ble Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court. He sought the release of his mini-truck, impounded by custom authorities, until the disposal of a case registered against him.---Issues:Whether Abdul Mutallib is entitled to the superdari of his impounded vehicle.Whether retaining the vehicle by custom authorities indefinitely is justifiable.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Justice Ali Baig presided over the case. The court allowed Abdul Mutallib's petition after considering arguments from both parties. Mutallib asserted his ownership of the vehicle and claimed no involvement in the criminal case related to it. The absence of any rival claimant and the proper maintenance of vehicle documents supported his claim. The court emphasized that retaining the vehicle indefinitely would result in its decay and damage, which was unacceptable under the law. Consequently, the court directed the respondent to hand over the vehicle to Mutallib on superdari, provided he furnished personal security bonds. Mutallib was instructed not to sell or transfer the vehicle until the case's decision and to produce it in court when required. The court's decision did not prejudice the rights of any rival claimant with better title.

Summary: Background:Mujeeb Ur Rehman and Bakht Zaman (petitioners) filed criminal revision petitions under Section 439 read with Section 516-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) against the orders dated 06-08-2019 and 04-09-2019 passed by the Sessions Judge/Special Judge CNSA Gilgit. The petitioners sought the superdari (custody) of their vehicles, which were detained by the police in connection with FIR No.96/2019 and FIR No.105/2019 under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act (CNSA) 1997.---Issues:Whether the petitioners, as owners of the detained vehicles, are entitled to the superdari of their vehicles.Whether Section 74 of CNSA 1997 prohibits the release of vehicles used in the commission of an offense to their bona fide owners.Relief.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Entitlement to Superdari: The court found that the petitioners are the bona fide owners of the vehicles in question, and there are no rival claimants for the custody of these vehicles. The petitioners are not involved in the criminal cases, and they had no knowledge of the contraband being transported in their vehicles by their drivers.Interpretation of Section 74 CNSA 1997: The court interpreted Section 74 of CNSA 1997, stating that the provision does not place an embargo on releasing vehicles to bona fide owners who are neither accused in the case nor associates of the actual accused. The term "private individual" in Section 74 does not include the rightful owners of the vehicles.Relief: The court allowed the criminal revision petitions, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the release of the vehicles to the petitioners on superdari, subject to furnishing surety bonds.----Citations/Precedents:PLD 2002 Pesh 87 (Peshawar High Court decision on similar matter).2007 MLD 1372 (Lahore High Court decision on similar matter).2014 P.Cr.L.J. 989 (supporting the petitioners' contentions).Conclusion:The criminal revision petitions were accepted, and the impugned orders dated 06-08-2019 and 04-09-2019 were set aside. The vehicles in question were ordered to be released to the petitioners on superdari, subject to furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 500,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The petitioners were also directed to produce the vehicles in the trial court as and when required for the purpose of the trial.

Summary: Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------S. 32---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.516-A---Superdari of vehicle---Articlesconnected with narcotics---Knowledge of the owner of vehicle---Scope---Prosecutionassailed order of Trial Court whereby it had accepted the application of respondent forrelease of vehicle---Validity---Respondent had produced legal documents of the vehicle,which were verified by the Trial Court from Excise and Taxation Department---Control ofNarcotic Substances Act, 1997 did not put an embargo on release of vehicle on superdari tothe bona fide owner---Prosecution had to establish the knowledge of the owner of vehicle inrespect of its usage for smuggling of contraband material---Control of Narcotic SubstancesAct, 1997 did not prohibit the release of vehicle used in trafficking of narcotics, when theowner had no nexus with the commission of the crime or the accused and he was unawarethat the vehicle was being used for the crime---Revision petition was dismissed.

Summary: Sections 32,74 of CNSA 1997.Return of vehicle on superdari to innocent real owner.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 516-A---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)---Superdari ofvehicle---Scope---Appellant assailed order of Trial Court whereby his application forsuperdari of vehicle seized as case property was dismissed---Narcotics were recovered fromthe toolbox of the vehicle which was driven by accused---Appellant was not accused in thecase nor the prosecution had brought on record any incriminating material to show theknowledge of appellant in respect of the allegedly recovered narcotics---Narcotics were notrecovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle---Appellant, being in possession of validdocuments showing his undisputed ownership, was entitled to the custody of the vehicle---Appeal was allowed.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 516-A---Superdari of vehicle used for offence---Scope---Vehicle shall not beconfiscated unless it is proved that the owner was aware that his vehicle is being used inthe crime.

Summary: Superdari of non custom paid vehicle.... Courts have no jurisdiction/ powers to release such vehicle on superdari.Certain provisions of Customs Act, 1969, empower the Central Board of Revenue to issue certain notification in matters pertaining to delegated legislation and the exemptions and the scope and extent thereof under Section 19 of the Ibid Act are exclusively within the competence of Federal Government.

Summary: Non-custom paid vehicles can`t be released on Superdari, Exception in such case falls into the competence of Federal Government and not the provincial Government in term of S.19 of the Custom Act, 1969.