ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Revision.Appln.No.S-29 of 2018.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

· For orders on office objection “A”

· For hearing of main case.

07.01.2019.

                        Mr.Saeed Ahmed Bijarani, Advocate for the applicant.                                          Mr.Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate for complainant.

                        Mr. Sharafuddin Kanhar, A.P.G for the State.

~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~

1.                    The applicant by way of instant criminal revision application has impugned order dated 12.04.2018 passed by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot, whereby he has declined to restore custody of Coach to the applicant on superdari, with the following observation;

“I have also perused the record so also report which shows that 05 persons have been murdered in the incident. Moreover, the driver of the Coach has absconded away at the time of incident at the instance of applicant/owner. The police report also shows that some of the persons have also (become) injured in the incident and the owner has not paid the compensation/treatment (to) the said injured person”.

2.                    The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant Cr. Revision application are that the said Coach when was being driven by its driver Israr Ahmed allegedly in rash and negligent manner, hit to Dotson Pickup thereby not only five persons sitting therein lost their lives but certain sustained injuries, for that a case was registered with Police Station Ghouspur.

3.                    The applicant by way of filing an application u/s 516-A Cr.PC sought for custody of said Coach on superdari. It was dismissed by learned trial Court by way of order, which the applicant has impugned before this Court by way of instant criminal revision application.

4.                    It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the said Coach is no more required by the police as the investigation of the very case is over. It is not the case property and applicant being its owner could not be denied its custody on superdari pending disposal of the case. By contending so, he sought for restoration of the said Coach on superdari in favour of the applicant. In support of his contention, he relied upon case of law Muhammad Rashid and others Vs. The State (PLD 1991 Karachi-200).

5.                    Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed to grant of custody of said Coach on superdari to the applicant by contending that same being case property would never be produced before learned trial Court.

6.                    Learned A.P.G for the State has recorded no objection for restoration of custody of said Coach to the applicant on superdari.

7.                    I have considered the above arguments and perused the case law.

8.                    It is alleged that the said Coach at the time of incident was being driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver Israr Ahmed when it hit to a Dotson pickup as a result whereof, five persons lost their lives and certain sustained injuries. It was obviously a road accident. The said Coach as such same could not be said to be a weapon to have been used in commission of incident, which may make the applicant disentitled to its custody on superdari. The said Coach is no more over required by the police for further investigation. The said Coach if is not restored in favour of the applicant on superdari then it would reduce its use and utility. In these circumstances, the impugned order of learned trial Court denying the custody of said Coach to the applicant on superdari simply for the reason that the owner has not yet compensation to the injured could not be sustained, it is set aside.

9.                    Consequently, the applicant is allowed to take the custody of said Coach on superdari, on proper verification of his ownership documents subject to his furnishing surety in sum of Rs.500,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

10.                  Instant criminal revision application is disposed of accordingly.

                                                    JUDGE