| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 3423 2025 SLD 3423 = 2025 PCRLJ 936 |
Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench
Writ Petitions Nos. 416-M to 419-M of 2022, decided on 8th November, 2024.
Before Dr. Khurshid Iqbal, J
Rahimullah Chitrali, Assistant A.G for the State. Muhamamd Nabi and Said Karim Shalman for
Respondents (in Writ Petitions Nos. 1 to 3). Nemo for
Respondent (in Writ Petition No. 419-M of 2022).
Writ Petitions Nos. 416-M to 419-M of 2022, decided on 8th November, 2024.
Before Dr. Khurshid Iqbal, J
Rahimullah Chitrali, Assistant A.G for the State. Muhamamd Nabi and Said Karim Shalman for
Respondents (in Writ Petitions Nos. 1 to 3). Nemo for
Respondent (in Writ Petition No. 419-M of 2022).
The STATE---Petitioner
VERSUS
NISAR ALI KHAN and others---Respondents
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 516A,523,550
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 516-A, 523 & 550---Seizure of non-customs paid vehicles having tampered, 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, however Revisional Court allowed the revision petitions against order of Magistrate---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 is question were taken from the possession of respondents and they had submitted documents to support their titles---However, the presence of unauthorized alterations to the chassis numbers of these vehicles raised significant concerns--As such, the vehicles could not simply be returned to the respondents solely on the basis of their status as bona fide purchasers---Record indicated that respondents did not exercise due diligence or care while purchasing the vehicles, which was critical in establishing their defence---Bona fide purchasers could not claim legal protection if they failed to conduct proper inquiries regarding the legitimacy of the vehicle's legal status and any alterations that might have occurred---Considering the unauthorized modification of the chassis numbers in the present cases, the respondents' claims of being bona fide purchasers were weakened---Failure of respondents to take the necessary precautions at the time of purchasing the vehicles precluded them from asserting an entitlement of their return, as their actions might be construed as neglecting the responsibilities associated with acquiring property of such nature---In the present cases, the vehicles in question had been examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory, which had reported that the vehicles had welded and refitted chassis plates, with some chassis numbers having been deciphered---Said reports fundamentally compromised the legal status of these vehicles, making them highly questionable in terms of their legitimacy---Tampering of chassis…