Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 435, 439 & 561-A---Criminal Revision---Scope of revisional jurisdiction--- Petitioner assailed order of Special Judge (Customs, Taxation and Anti-Smuggling) whereby only CNIC was ordered to be returned while other seized articles, including vehicle and personal belongings, were withheld---Held, that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court may be exercised where the subordinate court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or has acted arbitrarily or contrary to law---Impugned order, to the extent of refusal to release personal belongings, was passed without sufficient legal justification and amounted to improper exercise of discretion---Interference warranted. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 516-A & 523---Custody and disposal of property---Personal belongings not forming part of case property---Return thereof--- Items seized during personal search of accused, including vehicle, mobile phones, SIM cards, ATM and Army cards, wallet, cash, driving license, and vehicle registration book, were not alleged to be proceeds of crime or instrumentalities of the offence---No material was produced by prosecution to connect said items with the offence under Customs Act, 1969---Held, that mere seizure at the time of arrest, without establishing a nexus with the alleged offence, cannot justify continued retention---Personal property of accused not required for investigation or trial must be returned. (c) Customs Act, 1969 ----Ss. 2(s), 16, 157, 178(i), 156(1)---Articles seized during investigation---Relevance to offence--- No evidence on record to show that the vehicle or other seized articles were part of smuggling activity or constituted case property---Retention of such articles under the guise of investigation held unwarranted. (d) Administration of justice--- ----Right to property---Exercise of judicial discretion--- Court observed that continued withholding of property belonging to an accused, which bears no evidentiary value, constitutes arbitrary deprivation of property and misuse of judicial discretion---Articles not required for purposes of trial must be released to their lawful owner. (g) Disposition --- Criminal Revision allowed---Impugned order dated 05.03.2025 set aside to the extent of denial of release of seized items---Respondents directed to return petitioner’s vehicle and personal belongings upon furnishing surety bonds of Rs.100,000/- within seven days.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----Ss. 523 & 550---Superdari of vehicle---Procedure upon seizure of property---Failure of police to comply with statutory requirements---Petitioner sought release of a Suzuki Van on superdari, which was impounded by police and later involved in an FIR under Ss. 419, 420 & 471, PPC---Prosecution failed to show that the vehicle was stolen property or involved in any criminal case apart from an F.S.L. report indicating a welded chassis number---Held, S. 523, Cr.P.C. mandates that seized property must be reported to a Magistrate, who then decides its disposal---In the present case, police failed to report the seizure to the Magistrate, rendering their retention of the vehicle unlawful---Further, indefinite retention of the vehicle without trial progression would lead to its deterioration, which was against legal principles---Petitioner established prima facie ownership, and in the absence of a rival claimant with a better title, was entitled to superdari. ----Disposition: Petition allowed; vehicle handed over to the petitioner on superdari, subject to surety bonds of Rs. 100,000/- and a restriction on sale or transfer until the final decision of the criminal case.