Summary: (Against the order dated 13.03.2024 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court, Hyderabad in Civil Petition No. D-1077 of 2023). (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 516-A---Superdari---Interim custody of vehicle---Effect---Permitting interim custody of vehicle on Superdari neither amounts to prejudice the trial nor gives a clean chit to accused, nor does it relieve or exempt owner / recipient of custody from pending legal proceedings---Duration of interim custody may continue subject to the bond and surety till the final fate of the case---Till then the person allowed interim custody is duty-bound under law to attend, participate and produce the vehicle as and when directed by Court. (b) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)--- ----Ss. 12, 13 & 17---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.516-A---Freezing of vehicle---Superdari---Interim custody, grant of---Non-filing of objections---Criminal Procedure Code, 1898---Applicability---Petitioner / accused was aggrieved of refusal to grant interim custody of vehicle in question which was frozen under section 12 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 by Accountability Court---High Court declined to give interim custody of the vehicle as the accused had not filed any objection against freezing order---Validity---Accused never endeavored to challenge freezing order, rather he accepted it without demur but he applied for custody of vehicle within the sphere of freezing order (which was confined to an embargo against transfer of vehicle only)---There was no demonstrable restriction or prohibition in law that if an accused or aggrieved person had failed to lodge a claim or objection against freezing order in terms of Section 13 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, they would be deprived and perpetually or unremittingly not be able to apply for interim custody of vehicle / property---There is no inconsistency or incongruity between section 516-A, Cr.P.C. and provision of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999---There is no specific provision for releasing custody of vehicle embedded in National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and there are also no absolute restrictions against doing so---Aid and assistance may be taken by Courts from general provisions of Cr.P.C., particularly when the letter of law indubitably makes it clear that provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 apply mutatis mutandis to proceedings unless there is anything inconsistent with the provisions of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999---Supreme Court set aside order passed by High Court and allowed interim custody of vehicle in question on Superdari, in terms of Section 516-A, Cr.P.C.---Appeal was allowed. Muhammad Iqbal Chaudhry v. Secretary, Ministry of Industries and Production, Government of Pakistan and others PLD 2004 SC 413; Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Limited v. Government of Pakistan 2015 SCMR 630; Amanullah Khan v. Federal Government of Pakistan PLD 1990 SC 1092; Abid Hasan v. PIAC 2005 SCMR 25 and Khalid Humayun v. The NAB through DG Quetta and others PLD 2017 SC 194 ref. (c) Interpretation of statutes--- ----General and special laws---Object, purpose and scope---Special law is meant to refer to laws regulating specific subjects and stipulating their own limitations and conditions to be applied---Special law prevails and dominates over general law---Courts while resolving the issue of whether a statute is a special or general law, the crucial consideration must be the legislative intent---In case of divergence, rule of harmonious construction may be adopted. Shaukat Hayat, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Sattar Mehmood Awan, Deputy Prosecutor General, Syed Meeral Shah, Special Prosecutor and Irfan Ali, I.O/Deputy Director for the NAB. Date of hearing: 18th March, 2025. (a) The Chairman NAB or the court trying an accused for any offence as specified under this Ordinance, may, at any time, if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed such an offence, order the freezing of his property or part thereof, whether in his possession or in the possession of any relative, associate or person on his behalf. (d) If the property ordered to be frozen consists of livestock or is of a perishable nature, the Chairman NAB, or the Court may, if it deems proper and expedient, order the immediate sale thereof and the proceeds of the sale may be deposited with the Chairman NAB or the Court, or as either may direct as Appropriate. (e) The powers, duties, and liabilities of a receiver, if any, appointed under this section shall be the same as those of a receiver appointed under Order-XL of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908). 1 (f) The order of freezing mentioned in sub-sections 'a' to 'e' shall remain operative until the final disposal of the case by the Court, and in the event of the acquittal of the accused, shall continue to remain operative for a period of ten days after receipt of certified copy of the order of acquittal or release by NAB, whereafter it shall be subject to an order by the court in which an appeal, if any, is filed. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of any law for the time being in force, the Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon all claims or objections against the freezing of any property under Section 12 above. Such claims or objection shall be made before the Court within 14 days from the date of the order freezing such property. (c) The accused or any other aggrieved party, whose claim or objection against freezing of property has been dismissed by the Court, may, within ten days file an appeal against such order before the High Court.

Summary: (a) National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (NAO) --- Ss. 12, 13 & 17 --- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 --- S. 516-A --- Freezing of property --- Scope of freezing order --- Interim custody of vehicle on superdari --- Maintainability of application under S. 516-A, Cr.P.C. during pendency of NAB Reference --- Applicability of Cr.P.C. in NAB proceedings. A freezing order under section 12(b)(iii) of NAO 1999, which prohibits the transfer of property, does not amount to seizure or possession by the NAB. Therefore, a vehicle subject to such an order can be released on superdari under section 516-A, Cr.P.C., provided no inconsistency arises between NAO and Cr.P.C. provisions. In the present case, the freezing order only restricted the transfer of the vehicle and did not bar interim custody. The petitioner, while accepting the freezing order without objection, retained the right to seek superdari. The Court held that section 516-A Cr.P.C. applies mutatis mutandis to NAB proceedings under section 17 of the NAO 1999 and that the denial of interim custody was legally misconceived. Cited Cases: Muhammad Iqbal Chaudhry v. Secretary Ministry of Industries (PLD 2004 SC 413) Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Ltd. v. Govt. of Pakistan (2015 SCMR 630) Amanullah Khan v. Federal Government of Pakistan (PLD 1990 SC 1092) Khalid Humayun v. NAB (PLD 2017 SC 194) Abid Hasan v. PIAC (2005 SCMR 25) (b) Freezing Order --- Interpretation --- Typographical error in freezing order --- Correction by trial court --- Discretion of courts to consider substance over form. The Freezing Order referred to the impounded vehicle as “Toyota Vezel” whereas the correct make was “Honda Vezel.” The Supreme Court directed the trial court to treat the superdari order as applicable to the vehicle identified by registration, chassis, and engine numbers, irrespective of the typographical error in the original order. Substance must prevail over clerical error to avoid unjust deprivation of property. (c) Constitutional law --- Arts. 23 & 24 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 --- Right to property --- Interim deprivation of property --- Judicial discretion to grant superdari must be exercised fairly and reasonably. Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution protect the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property, and prohibit deprivation without due process of law. Courts, when dealing with applications for superdari, must consider the constitutional safeguards against arbitrary deprivation of property. Discretion under section 516-A Cr.P.C. must be exercised fairly, and reasons must be recorded to justify withholding or granting interim custody. (d) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 --- S. 516-A --- Superdari --- Judicial responsibility --- Standard for granting custody of seized property --- Requirement of ownership proof and solvent surety. An application under section 516-A Cr.P.C. must be decided based on clear ownership documents such as registration certificates or purchase invoices. Interim custody should be granted subject to furnishing personal bond and solvent surety equivalent to market value. Courts must record specific reasons while granting or denying interim custody and must ensure the vehicle is produced whenever required during trial. (e) Accountability Court --- Discretion --- Exercise of jurisdiction --- Requirement of speaking order --- Duty to apply judicial mind. The Accountability Court failed to examine the exact scope of the Freezing Order and summarily dismissed the application for superdari without analyzing the relevant statutory provisions or the facts specific to the petitioner. The Supreme Court observed that slipshod or perfunctory dismissal of interlocutory applications violates the obligation to provide reasoned, lawful, and structured decisions, especially in matters involving fundamental rights. Disposition: Appeal allowed; Orders of Accountability Court and High Court set aside. Application under S. 516-A, Cr.P.C. for custody of vehicle on superdari allowed subject to personal bond and solvent surety equivalent to market value, and undertaking to produce the vehicle before court as required. Trial court directed to mark caution against vehicle’s transfer.

Summary: Foreign exchange Regulations Act, 1947 S. 516-A Read with section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code. Recovery of huge amount of foreign currency from the possession of the accused. . . . Petitioner claiming to be lawful owner paid to him as sale consideration of plot but failing to prove payment in foreign currency. . .Record Prima Facie reveals running of illegal business of foreign currency without taking permission U/S 3-A of Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1947, petition was dismissed in the circumstances.

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: Ss. 516 & 561-A CrPC.Superdari of Vehicle... determination of title of vehicle... u/s 91 QSO, 1984 strong presumption of correctness and sanctity of high order is attached to Judicial pronouncements.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 516-A, 367 & 561-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.7 & 25---Confiscatedvehicle, custody of---Jurisdiction of Trial Court---Direction of Supreme Court---Trial Courtconfiscated vehicle in question and declined its custody on the plea that the same would bereview of its own judgment---Validity---Confiscation order did not fall within the definition of"judgment" as contemplated under S.367, Cr.P.C.---Supreme Court permitted appellant to fileapplication before Trial Court and also directed Trial Court to entertain the application anddecide the same---Trial Court was bound to decide entitlement of appellant regarding vehicle inquestion on its own merits---Trial Court erred in law by dismissing application on sucherroneous unwarranted and unjustified reason---High Court set aside order passed by Trial Courtand remanded the application for decision afresh---Appeal was allowed accordingly

Summary: S.9C CNSA,S. 516-A CrPC, Superdari of Vehicle, Trial in Progress,No rival claimant, Applicant owner but not accused (Appeal allowed)

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 516-A---Superdari of vehicle---Vehicle seized in narcotics/arms case---Registered owner---No rival claimant---Petitioner sought superdari of vehicle No. AEW-410, Model 2014, seized in connection with FIR/Crime No.675 dated 26.09.2025 under CNSA and Arms Ordinance provisions---Prosecution did not dispute petitioner’s ownership and no rival claimant existed---High Court held that where ownership is admitted and no competing claim or legal bar exists, interim custody may be granted to lawful owner subject to safeguards. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 516-A---Interim custody of case property---Scope and object---Court has ample discretionary power to pass appropriate orders regarding custody of property pending conclusion of trial---Object of S.516-A, Cr.P.C. is to preserve identity of case property while preventing unnecessary loss, damage or deterioration---Property should not remain in official custody indefinitely where its evidentiary value can be preserved through conditions. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 516-A---Vehicle as case property---Retention in police custody---Deterioration and depreciation---Effect---High Court observed that vehicles kept parked in open spaces under official custody for prolonged periods suffer mechanical deterioration and substantial depreciation in value---Indefinite retention without compelling justification defeats purpose of preservation of case property. (d) Superdari---- ----Nature of relief---Interim arrangement---No prejudice to prosecution---Release of vehicle on superdari is only an interim custodial arrangement and does not amount to acquittal, final adjudication of rights, or confer any undue advantage upon accused/owner---Prosecution case is not prejudiced where identity and evidentiary value of vehicle can be preserved through documentation, photographs, surety bonds and undertaking to produce vehicle when required. (e) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Arts. 23 & 24---Right to acquire, hold and protect property---Vehicle seized during investigation---Interim custody to lawful owner---Continued retention of vehicle in official custody despite admitted ownership amounts to unnecessary deprivation of property---Fundamental right to property cannot be curtailed except strictly in accordance with law---In absence of confiscation proceedings, competing claim, or legal impediment, owner cannot be deprived of interim custody indefinitely. (f) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 516-A---Conditions for release on superdari---Surety and undertaking---Vehicle ordered to be released subject to furnishing surety equivalent to market value to satisfaction of Trial Court---Petitioner directed not to alienate or alter vehicle and to produce same before Trial Court whenever directed---Failure would entail appropriate legal action. (g) Criminal revision/miscellaneous jurisdiction---- ----Superdari application dismissed by Courts below---Non-exercise of jurisdiction---High Court held that Courts below failed to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with law and did not properly appreciate scope and object of S.516-A, Cr.P.C.---Impugned orders refusing superdari were set aside. Disposition: Crl. Misc. No.2186 of 2025 was allowed; orders dated 29.10.2025 and 18.11.2025 passed by Courts below were set aside; vehicle bearing registration No. AEW-410 was ordered to be released to petitioner on superdari subject to furnishing surety equivalent to its market value, undertaking not to alienate or alter the vehicle, and producing it before Trial Court as and when required.

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) –– S. 516-A –– Superdari –– Custody of vehicle pending trial –– Scope –– Vehicle used in commission of offence –– Petition for release of gas bowser trailer involved in accident resulting in deaths and injuries –– Trial Court dismissed application under S.516-A, Cr.P.C. –– Held, vehicle was not subject-matter of the offence, and its use in alleged negligent driving did not equate to it being a 'weapon' or 'instrument' of crime –– Ownership of vehicle remained with Multan LPG (Pvt.) Ltd. which had authorised petitioner (driver) to pursue its release –– Petitioner was last possessor, and no rival claimant existed –– Detaining vehicle in police custody without valid reason amounts to penalizing owner unnecessarily –– Petition allowed –– Vehicle ordered to be released on superdari to petitioner upon furnishing surety. Cited Cases: • Miss Zarina Khan v. The State (1970 PCr.LJ 1215) • Ghulam Akbas v. Muhammad Ilyas and another (1974 PCr.LJ Note 53) • Haji Rab Nawaz v. The State (1988 PCr.LJ 1353) Relevant Provision: Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, S. 516-A Disposition: Revision allowed; vehicle ordered to be released on superdari to petitioner. **(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) –– S. 516-A –– Proper custody of property during trial –– Scope –– Nature of judicial discretion –– Held, purpose of S.516-A, Cr.P.C. is to ensure proper custody of property during pendency of trial –– Where vehicle is not subject to decay and no legal impediment or rival claim exists, it should be returned to the last possessor or owner to avoid undue hardship –– Court must exercise discretion judicially, balancing evidentiary needs with ownership rights and preservation of property value –– In present case, no justification existed for continued impoundment, particularly when petitioner had committed to producing vehicle before Court as required. Disposition: Revision allowed.