ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court orde­red the four provincial governments as well as the chief commissioner of Islamabad Cap­­­ital Territory (ICT) on Friday to consider amending the Motor Vehicle Ordina­nce (MVO) 1965 in order to prevent registration of vehicles used in the commission of crimes, especially those related to narcotics.

The court also asked the provincial governments and the ICT to consider developing an online verification system to identify vehicles involved in crimes.

The transferor/transferee at the time of registration of a vehicle should obtain a No Objection Certificate (NoC) from police or submit an affidavit that the vehicle was not involved in any criminal case, the Supreme Court observed.

Authored by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, the directives came on an appeal against an Oct 30, 2017, judgement of the Lahore High Court (LHC). A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik, had heard the case.

Orders provinces, ICT to stop registration of such vehicles

Facts of the case suggest that on a tip-off, police conducted a raid by intercepting a Toyota Corolla car and arrested two passengers. Police claimed to have recovered narcotics and weapons from the vehicle as well as from the passengers and a criminal case was registered against the two passengers in Lahore on Aug 20, 2015, under the provisions of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997 (CNSA) and the Arms Ordinance 1965.

Subsequently, police seized the vehicle, but during the trial petitioner Amjad Ali Khan, who claimed to be the owner of the vehicle, submitted an application before the trial court on Nov 20 for release of the vehicle on “superdari” (custody).

The petitioner asserted in his application that he would suffer an “irreparable loss” if the possession of the vehicle was not han­d­­ed over to him. He expressed an apprehension that police might damage his vehicle.

The trial court allowed the application for superdari on Dec18.

The state challenged the order through an appeal before the LHC.

The registration of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner was made after the offence, seizure of the vehicle by police and registration of the criminal case.

The Supreme Court, however, held that the court order allowing superdari of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner was not sustainable under the law and upheld the LHC decision to set it aside.

The Supreme Court declined leave to appeal and dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court held that under the scheme of general criminal law, a vehicle seized by police and having become case property, can be released on superdari during the trial.

Things, however, are different under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act as it does not envisage release of a vehicle during the trial, except as provided in sections 32(2) and 74 of the law. Hence vehicles, vessels and other forms of conveyance are liable to confiscation if they are used in carrying narcotics substances.

The judgement explained that under section 74 of CNSA, the provisions of CrPC to the extent of custody and disposal of the vehicle under general law were not applicable. Thus a vehicle used in the commission of an offence under CNSA cannot be relea­sed or given on superdari to an accused or any of his associates till the conclusion of the case.

The Supreme Court emphasised that the petitioner must be “owner” of the vehicle, which means the vehicle must be registered in his name.

In the present case, the petitioner moved the application for seeking superdari even though he had an open transfer letter only, which is not a valid document of title and does not transfer ownership of a vehicle in terms of MVO, the court observed.

Subsequently, the vehicle was registered in the name of the petitioner on Jan 21, 2016, five months after the alleged commission of the offence, seizure of the vehicle and registration of the criminal case. 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, the order said.

As the petitioner failed to establish his ownership, “we see no reason to burden the prosecution to show if the petitioner was aware of the commission of the offence or not”, the verdict said.

The Supreme Court ruled that application for release of the vehicle was not maintainable and that the trial court was wrong to have allowed the petitioner to take possession of the vehicle.

Published in Dawn, April 25th, 2020