Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

In the court of worthy Additional Session Judge-1 Chunian

Subject: Cancellation request of order dated 30-12-2017 by learned Area Magistrate

Respected Sir,
On 30th December 2017, the learned Magistrate Mr. Junaid Ahmad Makhdoom ordered
Superdari of vehicle bearing number APB-491 in favor of Mr. Muhammad Azeem. It is earnestly
requested that the same order may kindly be cancelled on the following grounds.

1. The above mentioned vehicle has rival claimant from whom it was confiscated and his
Superdari application has already been rejected by the honorable court.

2. The vehicle chasis and engine number seems to be tempered and a laboratory report
in this regard is awaiting. The Honorable Lahore High Court in its judgement in case of
Muhammad Sajjad vs State has clearly stated that:

“I am of the considered view that any vehicle without specific identification cannot be allowed
to play on roads as the same cannot be stamped to be of a particular owner that is a serious
security threat and such like vehicles are being used in criminal activities including smuggling of
narcotics and bomb blasts. It is high time to discourage allowing such vehicles to put on
superdari on the basis of duplicate registration books of the stolen or destroyed vehicles. It has
come to the notice of this Court in numerous cases that in official public auctions people bid and
buy the discarded/damaged vehicles at exorbitant high prices only to get registration books and
then these books are being used with tampered vehicles after getting duplicate registration
books of the same and embossing identification marks with tampering techniques

3. Matter regarding the vehicles with doubtful identity has been dealt with in the case
of Ch. Maqbool Ahmed versus Customs, Federal Excise and Sales Tax, Appellate
Tribunal and 3 others (2009 SCMR 226), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Pakistan has approved the view of Customs Department that a vehicle with tampered
chassis frame is liable to outright confiscation.
4. Ordinarily the Court is required to pass an order of superdari in favour of a person
entitled to its possession or from whom it was recovered unless there are special
circumstances which may warrant a different course. (NLR 1985 C.R.286, PLJ 1985 Cr.
C. 127, 1985 P.Cr.L.J. 1175 + NLR 1981 Cr.L.J. 449 (SC) + NLR 1980 Cr. 44 + 1980 P.Cr.L.J.
Disposal of crime property. Court directing that vehicle (crime property) be kept in police custody
till question of title be determined finally by a civil Court. Held, proper exercise of discretion in
the circumstances of the case. (SC) 1972 SCMR 159 Ghulam Gilani v. Muhammad Yousaf.

Entitlement to custody not ascertained. Ownership by itself is not enough to establish

entitlement to custody. Magistrate giving cattle on superdari to applicant without sending for
police record or ascertaining entitlement to custody. The Magistrate held, acted perfunctorily.
Order set aside. 1976 P.C.LJ 632 Dais Muhammad v. Zahoor Ahmed Khan etc.

Superdari of motor vehicle given to the person from whose possession it was taken by the police,
till the decision of the civil Court. 1992 SCMR 1454, Munir Ahmed v. Barkhurdar.

" Superdari order should be passed in favour of a person entitled to its possession or from whom
it was recovered unless there are strong reasons against it. Refusal by the Magistrate that the car
when given on superdari will be recklessly used and depreciate in value is unlawful. PLJ 1976 Lah.
181 Farooq Jamil. PLD 1976 Lah. 58.