O R D E R S H E E T

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Misc. Application No.113 of 2012

For Katcha Peshi,

21.01.2013 Mr. Raham Ali Jatoi, Advocqate for the applicant

Mr. Mohan Lal Ladhani, State Counsel

SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J:- The applicant, named above, has assailed the order dated 06^th Febuary 2012, whereby application under Section 517 Cr.P.C, moved by him, was dismissed by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has inter alia contended that the Car in question, which is shown by the prosecution to be a case property, in fact, is not required in the case; main accused have been acquitted by the trial Court, therefore, there is no need to keep the same “as the case property”; the order of trial Court is illegal and not maintainable as the Car, used by the accused, is not falling within the definition of a case property and the same can be a weapon like gun, swords e.t.c; and he has relied upon 1971 P.Cr.L.J 19.

3. Conversely, learned State Counsel, argued that the case is still pending against the absconding accused, therefore, the Car in question, is required at the time of trial and the applicant is in possession of the same viz. on Superdari basis, therefore, his application was properly dismissed by the trial Court.

4. Before, stepping onto merits of the case, first, It would be proper to understand here the difference between the provision of Section 516-A and 517 of the Code. The plain reading of the Section 516-A of the Code by use of the words “during any inquiry or trial the pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial” makes it clear that such delivery of custody is for pending inquiry or trial while the legislatures have made the object and purpose of Section 517 of the Code by using the phrase “when an inquiry or a trial in any Criminal Court is concluded”. Thus it is obvious that the provision of Section 517 of the Code only be invoked and insisted at the conclusion of the inquiry or trial and not before that. The acquittal of some or any of the accused persons by trial Court cannot be termed to be conclusion of trial because the case against the absconding accused persons is kept on dormant file. To make things further clear, I would like to refer the meaning of word “dormant” with reference to Black’s Law Dictionary which defines the word “dormant” as “inactive; suspended; latent” which is not synonym for the word “conclusion”. Thus I am clear in saying that application of the applicant under section 517 Cr.P.C before conclusion of trial is entirely misconceived.

5. Now reverting to merits of the case, it is manifest that vehicle in question was not only used by accused persons in a abduction case for their arrival at place of incident and then one of the accused made an attempt to make his escape good, hence it is obvious that it was used as a facilitating tool to achieved intended object of abduction. However, referring myself from giving a definite opinion about status of vehicle in question to be a case property or otherwise as it might prejudice interests of any of the claimants at proper stage of exercise of jurisdiction, vested in Court by Section 517 of the Code. Without prejudice to above, it is not a disputed position that applicant is continuing with possession / custody of the vehicle in question on Superdari basis. In short, the applicant obtained custody through course, provided by Section 516-A of the Code for temporary custody of a property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence hence he is not justified to raise a plea that vehicle in question is not the case property. Regarding the case law, relied upon, it would be suffice to say that the same is not relevant to the instant case as in that case the Court while acquitting the accused ordered for confiscation of Jeep, required in that case but in the instant matter case is still pending.

5. As discussed above, applicant has failed to point any illegality, irregularity, and infirmity in the impugned order,consequently, this Criminal Miscellaneous application is dismissed.

JUDGE