Superdari..

              Superdari 

under CNSA and registration of vehicle by the Motor Vehicle Authority when the vehicle is on superdari.

Crl.P.74-L/2018

Amjad Ali Khan v. The State,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Present:

Mr. Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik

Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood

Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah

Criminal Petition No.74-L of 2018

(on appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 30.10.2017, passed in Crl.A No.146/2016 & WP No.33366/2016)

Amjad Ali Khan            ...….Petitioner

Versus

The State, etc              …….Respondents

For the petitioner: Sardar Khurram Latif Khan Khosa, ASC.

For the State: Rana Abdul Majeed, Addl.P.G.

Mr. Wajeeh Ullah Kundi, Secy Excise Pb.

Mr. Suhail Shahzad, DG Excise, Pb.

Mian Latif ETO, Mianwali.

Mr. Bilal Azam, Director Excise ICT.

Mr. Sharif Gul, ETO, ICT.

Date of Hearing: 13.03.2020

ORDER

 Syed  Mansoor  Ali  Shah,  J.  Upon  a  spy-information,  the Police  conducted  a  raid  by  intercepting  a  vehicle,  i.e.,  Toyota Corolla  bearing  registration  No.  UH  608  (the  “Vehicle”)  and apprehended  its  two  passengers.  The  Police  allegedly  recovered narcotics  and  weapons  from  the  Vehicle,  as  well  as,  from  the passengers.  In  this  background  a  criminal  case  (FIR  no.  397)  was registered  against  the  two  passengers  at  Police  Station Mustafabad,  District  Lahore  on  20.08.2015  under  the  provisions  of the  Control  of  Narcotics  Substances  Act,  1997  (the  “CNSA”)  and Arms  Ordinance,  1965.  The  Police  also  seized  the  Vehicle  on the  same  day.  According  to  the  Report  submitted  before  this  Court by  the  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Lahore  dated  24.11.2018,  the trial  of  the  case  is  pending  adjudication  and  the  Additional Prosecutor General has not stated otherwise. 

2.     Brief  facts,  pertaining  to  the  instant  matter,  are  that  during trial,  the  petitioner,  claiming  himself  to  be  the  “owner”  of  the Vehicle  and  not  being  an  accused  in  the  case,  submitted  an application  before  the  trial  court  on  20.11.2015  for  release  of  the Vehicle  to  him  on  superdari.  The  petitioner  asserted  in  the application  that  he  was  the  owner  of  the  Vehicle  and  if  the  Vehicle was  not  handed  over  to  him  he  would  suffer  irreparable  loss; besides,  there  was  a  probability  that  the  Vehicle  may  suffer damage  in the possession of the Police. 

 3. The  trial  court  allowed  the  application  for  superdari  vide order dated 18.12.2015  with the direction  to  hand  over the custody of  the  Vehicle  to  the  petitioner.  The  State  challenged  the  order  in appeal  before  the  High  Court.  As  the  Vehicle  had  not  been released,  the  petitioner  also  filed  a  writ  petition  praying  that  the Police  be  directed  to  hand  over  the  Vehicle  to  him  in  compliance with  the  order  of  the  trial  court.  The  High  Court  allowed  the  appeal of  the  State  and  dismissed  the  writ  petition  filed  by  the  petitioner vide  impugned  consolidated  Order  dated  30.10.2017,  on  the ground  that  the  petitioner  could  not  establish  his  ownership  of  the Vehicle  on  the  basis  of  an  open  transfer  letter.  Learned  counsel  for the  petitioner  has  pointed  out,  that  the  Vehicle  was  subsequently registered  in  the  name  of  the  petitioner  by  the  relevant  Authority on  21.01.2016.  Admittedly,  the  registration  of  the  Vehicle  in  favour of  the  petitioner  has  been  made  after  the  commission  of  the offence;  the  seizure  of  the  Vehicle  by  the  Police;  and  the registration of the criminal case. 

4. We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  parties,  gone through  the  record  of  the  case,  considered  the  submissions  of  the officials  of  the  Motor  Registration  Authority  (“Authority”)  and examined the relevant law. 

  5. This  case  brings  up  for  determination  two  distinct  yet interconnected  legal  issues.  First,  whether  a  vehicle  involved  in  the commission  of  an  offence  under  CNSA,  after  being  seized  by  the Police  and  put  up  before  the  court  as  case  property,  can  be temporarily  released  on  superdari  ?  And  second,  whether  a  vehicle that  has  been  seized  and  is  a  case  property  in  a  criminal  case under  the  Act  can  be  transferred  and  registered  in  the  name  of  a third  party  by  the  Authority  under  the  Motor  Vehicles  Ordinance, 1965  (the  “MVO”)  till  the  conclusion  of  the  trial  and  the  final disposal or confiscation  of the vehicle  by the court?   

A.  Release  of  Vehicle  (Case  Property)  on  Superdari  under CNSA 

6. Under the  scheme of  general criminal law,  a vehicle  seized  by the  Police  and  having  become  case  property,  can  be  released  on custody  (superdari),  during  the  trial,  under  sections  516-A  or  an order  be  made  for  its  disposal  to  the  person  entitled  to  its possession  by  the  Magistrate  under  section  523  of  the  Cr.P.C. Things  are,  however,  different  under  the  CNSA  which  does  not envisage  release  of  a  conveyance  (vehicle,  etc.)  during  the  trial, except  as  provided  in  the  proviso  to  section  32(2)  and  74  of  CNSA. Examining  the  scheme  of  the  Act,  we  note  that  section  32  deals with  Articles connected  with narcotics  in the following manner:-   

32.  Articles  connected  with  narcotics.---

(1)  Whenever  any offence  has  been  committed  which  is  punishable  under  this  Act, the  narcotic  drug,  psychotropic  substance  or  controlled substance,  materials,  apparatus  and  utensils  in  respect  of  which, or  by  means  of  which,  such  offence  has  been  committed  shall  be liable  to  confiscation.   

(2)  Any  narcotic  drug,  psychotropic  substance  or  controlled substance  lawfully  imported,  transported,  manufactured, possessed,  or  sold  alongwith,  or  in  addition  to,  any  narcotic  drug, psychotropic  substance  or  controlled  substance  which  is  liable  to confiscation  under  sub-section  (1)  and  the  receptacles  or packages,  and  the  vehicles,  vessels  and  other  conveyances  used in  carrying  such  drugs  and  substances  shall  likewise  be  liable  to confiscation:   

   Provided  that  no  vehicle,  vessel  or  other  conveyance  shall  be liable  to  confiscation  unless  it  is  proved  that  the  owner  thereof knew  that  the  offence  was  being,  or  was  to  be,  committed. 

7.   The  word  “narcotics”  in  the  title  of  the  section  refers  to narcotic  drugs,  psychotropic  substance  or  controlled  substance  in respect  of  which  an  offence  has  been  committed  under  the  CNSA (hereinafter  referred  to  as  “narcotics”).  Sub-section  (1)  of  section  32 provides  that  any  narcotics  or  materials,  apparatus  and  utensils  in respect  of  which  or  by  means  of  which  an  offence  punishable under  CNSA  has  been  committed  shall  be  liable  to  confiscation.  It is  pointed  out  that  section  32(1)  does  not  refer  to  any  conveyance including  a  vehicle  used  in  the  commission  of  the  offence.  Subsection  2  of  section  32  deals  with  articles,  which  are  connected with  narcotics;  These  articles  are  (i)  narcotic  drug,  psychotropic substance  or  controlled  substance  lawfully  imported,  transported, manufactured,  possessed  or  sold  (for  convenience  referred  to  as  “ lawful  drugs  and  substances”  as  compared  to  “narcotics” mentioned  above)  alongwith  or  in  addition  to,  any  narcotics  and articles  like  of  (ii)  receptacles  or  packages,  and  the  vehicles,  vessels and  other  conveyances  used  in  carrying  such  drugs  and substances.    Both  the  set  of  articles  mentioned  in  (i)  &  (ii)  above are  liable  to  confiscation.  Therefore,  vehicles,  vessels  and  other conveyances  are  liable  to  confiscation  if  they  are  used  in  carrying both  narcotics or narcotics alongwith lawful drugs and substances.  

 8. We  wish  to  point  out  that  at  first  blush,  reading  of  section 32(2)  does  create  an  impression  that  the  vehicles,  vessels  and other  conveyances  liable  to  confiscation  are  only  those  which  are used  in  carrying  joint  category  of  narcotics  and  lawful  drugs  and substance.  However,  a  more  holistic  reading  of  the  provision  shows that  it  would  be  absurd  to  imagine  that  only  vehicles,  vessels  and other  conveyances  carrying  joint  category  of  narcotics  and  lawful drugs  and  substances  are  liable  to  confiscation,  while  vehicles, vessels  and  other  conveyances  carrying  narcotics  alone  are  not liable  to  confiscation.  Therefore,  the  second  set  of  articles connected  with  narcotics  i.e.,  vehicles,  vessels  and  other conveyances  are  liable  to  confiscation  irrespective  whether  that  are used  in  carrying  narcotics  alone  or  joint  category  of  narcotics  and lawful drugs and substance.      

9.  The proviso to section 32 excludes certain vehicles, vessels and other conveyances from being liable to confiscation. According to the proviso unless it is proved that the owner of the vehicles, vessels and other conveyances knew that the offence was being or was to be committed, the vehicles, vessels and other conveyances are not liable to confiscation.  

10.  This view is further strengthened by the proviso to section 74 of CNSA, which provides: 

74. Application of other laws. If an offence punishable under this Act, is also an offence in any other law for the time being in force, nothing in that law shall prevent the offender from being punished under this Act:  

Provided that nothing contained in Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), or any other provision of the said Code or any other law for time being in force, the custody of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances, any material utensils used for production or manufacture of such drugs or substances or any conveyance used in import, export, transport or transshipment thereof or for commission of an offence under this Act, shall not be given on custody to the accused or any of his associate or relative or any private individual till the conclusion of the case except as provided in the second proviso to subsection (2) of section 33. 

    Under the proviso to section 74 of CNSA, the provisions of Cr.P.C to the extent of custody and disposal of a conveyance under general law are not applicable under CNSA. A vehicle used in the commission of an offence under CNSA cannot be released or given on custody (superdari) to the accused or any of his associate or relative or any private individual till the conclusion of the case. The terms “associate” and “relative” have been defined in clauses (b) and (z-b) of section 2 of CNSA, and the expression “any private individual” used in the proviso to section 74 has been explained by this Court in the case of Allah Ditta1 to be an individual who has some nexus with the offender or the offence.     

11.  Joint reading of sections 32 and 74 of CNSA show that an applicant can seek release of a vehicle on superdari, which has been seized under CNSA and is a case property in a criminal case; if the applicant can show that he is the lawful owner of the vehicle; that he is neither the accused nor an associate or a relative of the accused or an individual having any nexus with the accused. While the prosecution has to show that the applicant knew that the offence was being or was to be committed. See Allah Ditta2. Under section 33 if the vehicle is finally held not liable to confiscation it can be released to its owner. As a corollary, where the court can pass a final order, it can also pass an interim order. See Abdul Salam3. Therefore, a vehicle can also be released as an interim measure or temporarily on superdari under CNSA after the court is prime facie satisfied regarding the ownership of the applicant and the absence of the association of the owner with the accused and the commission of the offence. The applicant while asserting his ownership of the vehicle must specify in his application for superdari how he was deprived of the vehicle, how and when he found out that his vehicle was missing, and the legal proceedings initiated by him thereafter, if any. This becomes important in the light of section 109 of MVO which attracts criminal liability if one drives a vehicle without the consent of the owner. On the other hand, in order to oppose the release of vehicle on superdari, the prosecution has to prima facie show from the record that the owner knew that the offence was being or was to be, committed. It is underlined that it is during the trial that the prosecution has to prove that the owner knew that the offence was being or was to be, committed.  

12.  Coming to the facts of the present case, the first and the foremost condition is that the petitioner must be the “owner” of the vehicle. “Owner” is defined in section 2(24) of MVO to mean a person in whose name the motor vehicle is registered and includes the transferee. Transferee must be duly registered under MVO. In the present case, the petitioner   moved an application for seeking superdari of the Vehicle on 20.11.2015, described himself as the owner of the Vehicle, but at the time, he only had an open transfer letter. An open transfer letter is not a valid document of title4 and it does not transfer ownership of a vehicle in terms of MVO Subsequently, the Vehicle was duly registered in the name of the petitioner on 21.01.2016. This was too late as at the time of alleged commission of the offence, the seizure of the Vehicle and the registration of the criminal case on 20.08.2015 the petitioner was not the owner of the Vehicle. An applicant must be the owner of the vehicle prior to the commission of the offence. The registration certificate of the Vehicle shows that the original owner of the Vehicle was Muslim Khan, who sold the Vehicle to Asif Kamal and then finally the Vehicle was transferred in the name of the petitioner on 21.01.2016. Asif Kamal, was the owner of the vehicle at the time of the offence, but did not approach the court to seek release of the Vehicle. On 20.08.2015, when the petitioner made application for superdari of the Vehicle, he was not the owner of the Vehicle and, therefore, does not pass the requirement laid down in proviso to section 32 of CNSA.

13. Further, the petitioner did not assert a word, in the application, to show that he was not an associate or relative of the accused or an individual having any nexus with the accused or the offence. His failure to explain how the Vehicle, whose ownership he claims, had gone into the possession and use of the accused was fatal to his prayer for superdari of the same. As the petitioner has failed to establish his ownership of the Vehicle, we see no reason to burden the prosecution to show if the petitioner was aware of the commission of the offence. The application made for release of the Vehicle by the petitioner was, therefore, not maintainable, and was wrongly allowed by the trial court.

B.  Transfer of ownership of a seized vehicle and its registration under the Ordinance 

14. The Vehicle was registered in the name of the petitioner by the Motor Registration Authority under MVO when the Vehicle had already  been  seized  by  the  Police  and  had  become  case  property  in a criminal case, hence becoming liable to confiscation  under  CNSA. As  a  result  the  disposal  of  the  vehicle  comes  under  the  control  of the  court  and  the  owner  stands  cautioned  not  to  deal  or  transact with  the  title  of  the  vehicle  till  the  conclusion  of  the  trial.  Infact there  is  a  freeze  on  the  legal  title  of  the  owner  of  the  vehicle  till  the conclusion  of  the  trial.    The  rationale  behind  this  being  that  any transfer  or  change  in  the  title  of  the  vehicle  (case  property)  would undermine  the  safe  administration  of  criminal  justice  system;  as any  such  transfer  (registration  of  the  vehicle  in  the  name  of  a  third party)  would  amount  to  interference  in  the  powers  of  the  criminal court  and in eroding  the  sanctity and  security  of the  evidence  in an ongoing  criminal  trial.  Therefore,  transfer  of  ownership  of  the Vehicle  by  the  Motor  Registration  Authority  on  21.01.2016  was  not permissible and is, therefore,  without lawful authority.   

15.  Section  23  of  MVO  provides  that  no  person  shall  drive  a vehicle  or  no  owner  shall  permit  the  vehicle  to  be  driven  in  any place  unless  the  vehicle  is  registered  in  accordance  with  provisions of  MVO.    Section  27  requires  physical  production  of  the  vehicle before  the  Authority  or  any  authority  as  the  Government  may appoint  for  this  purpose,  in  order  that  the  Authority  is  satisfied that  the  particulars  contained  in  the  application  are  true  and  the vehicle  complies  with  the  requirements  of  Chapter  VI  and  of  the Rules  thereunder.  Physical  verification  of  the  vehicle  prior  to registration  has  many  advantages.  First,  it  helps  the  registering authority  verify  that  the  vehicle  being  registered  is  the  same  as mentioned  in  the  application  form  (Form  F),  e.g.  class  of  vehicle, type  of  body,  maker’s  name,  year  of  manufacture,  etc.  Second,  it confirms  that  the  vehicle  physically  exists  at  the  time  of registration  and  thirdly,  the  owner  is  in  lawful  possession  of  the vehicle  (moveable  property).  Section  32  provides  for  transfer  of ownership  in  favour  of  a  subsequent  transferee.  We  see  no  reason why  the  process  of  registration  of  a  vehicle  provided  under  section 27  be  any  different  for  the  vehicle  being  registered  subsequently  in the  name  of  a  new  transferee  and  for  any  further  transfers.  The importance  of  physical  verification  remains  equally  important  in subsequent  transfers,  as  has  come  to  surface  in  the  instant  case, where  a  vehicle  allegedly  involved  in  the  commission  of  a  crime, which  had  been  seized  by  the  police  and  was  a  case  property  in  a criminal  case,  yet  it  was  registered  in  the  name  of  the  petitioner  on the  basis  of  wrongful  assumption  that  the  transferor  holds  an absolute  legal  title  of  the  Vehicle  and  is  in  lawful  possession  of  the same.    The  application  for  registration  (Form  F)  or  the  application for  transfer  of  ownership,  rests  upon  a  fundamental  assumption that  the  vehicle  is  in  lawful  ownership  and  possession  of  the  owner of  the  vehicle.  In  order  to  effectively  regulate  the  vehicles  under MVO,  physical  verification  of  the  vehicle  at  the  time  of  registration and  its  subsequent  registration  is  critical  and  is  also  in  the  public interest  besides  advancing  the  purposes  of  MVO.   Physical verification  of  the  vehicle  also  helps  actualize  sections  34  and  35  of MVO  dealing  with  suspension  and  cancellation  of  registration  of the  vehicle.  We,  therefore,  hold  that  the  requirement  of  section  27 regarding  physical  verification  of  the  vehicle  prior  to  registration  is an  essential  requirement  and  is  fully  applicable  to  subsequent registrations  of  vehicles  under  section  32  of  MVO.  We,  therefore, refer  the  matter  relating  to  the  registration  of  the  Vehicle  in  favour of the  petitioner  dated  21.01.2016  to  the  concerned  Motor Registration Authority  for necessary  action  under the  law. 

 Direction  to  the  Government,  Motor  Registration  Authority and the Police.   

16.  We  deem  it  appropriate  to  direct  the  Provincial  Government, and  Chief  Commissioner,  ICT  to  consider  amendment(s)  in  MVO and  the  Rules  thereunder  to  prevent  registration  of  vehicles involved  in  the  commission  of  crime  as  discussed  above.  In addition,  the  Provincial  Governments  and  ICT  may  consider  that the  Motor  Registration  Authority  and  the  Police  develop  an  online verification  system  to  identify  vehicles  involved  in  the  commission of  crime.  The  transferor/transferee  at  the  time  of  registration  of  the vehicle  may  be  required  to  obtain  a  No  Objection  Certificate  from the  Police  or  to  submit  an  Affidavit  to  the  effect  that  the  vehicle  is not  involved in any criminal case.     

 17.  For  what  has  been  discussed  above  we  find  that  the  order  of the  trial  court  whereby  the  petitioner  had  been  allowed  superdari of  the  Vehicle  was  not  sustainable  under  the  law  and  was, therefore,  rightly  set  aside  by  the  High  Court.  We  uphold  the impugned  order,  decline  leave  and  dismiss  this  petition,  with  the above  direction  to  the  Provincial  Governments  and  ICT,  Motor Registration  Authority  and  the  Police.  The  Deputy  Registrar  of  this Court  at  the  Lahore  Branch  Registry  shall  send  copy  of  this  order to  the  Secretaries,  Excise  &  Taxation  Department  of  all  the Provincial  Governments  and  Director,  Excise  &  Taxation Department,  ICT,  as  well  as,  Inspectors  General  Police  of  the respective  Governments,  for  information  and  appropriate  action  at their  end.  These  are  the  reasons  for  our  short  order  dated 13.03.2020.  

           Lahore, 13th  March, 2020.

     Approved for reporting M.Farhan J

  ---------------------------------------------------                                    1  Allah Ditta v. The State,

                      2010 SCMR 1181

3. Abdul Salam v. The State, 2003 SCMR 246 

 4.See Sameen Khan v. The State, 2016 P.Cr.L.J. (Notes) 120; Razik Hussain v. Additional District ænd Sessions Judge-V and 2 others, 2015 YLR 2271; Ghulam Yasin v. The State and 3 others, 2014 MLD 90