Pleas moved under 516-A CrPC must be decided swiftly with fair hearing: SC
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court held that application moved under Section 516-A Code of Criminal Procedure Code must be decided expeditiously after providing a fair chance to contest the legality of the seizure and the order must be based on cogent reasons as to why the vehicle should be released or not.
A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, and comprising Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Salahuddin Panhwar ruled that in car superdari case.
The petitioner (Ahsan Ali Dawach) was taken into custody by National Accountability Bureau (NAB) for investigation of Rs3.2 billion pension funds scam, involving District Accounts Officials, Hyderabad, and others. At the time of arrest, a vehicle, Honda Vezel was also seized from the petitioner’s custody.
A reference under Section 18(g) and 24(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999 was filed against the petitioner and other persons.
During investigation, DG NAB Sindh passed an order on 01.02.2022 under Section 12 of the NAO 1999 for freezing of movable and immovable properties of accused persons which was confirmed by the trial court on 14.02.2023.
The petitioner, on 31.01.2023, filed an application under Section 516- A of the CrPC, 1898 in the trial court for release of the vehicle on superdari subject to furnishing of solvent surety, which was dismissed on 20.05.2023. The petitioner assailed the order of the trial court before the Sindh High Court, which was also dismissed, thus, the appeal before the Supreme Court.
The judgment, authored by Justice Mazhar, said that the application moved under Section 516-A CrPC must be decided expeditiously after providing a fair chance to contest the legality of the seizure and the order must be based on cogent reasons as to why the vehicle should be released or why it should not be released, rather than deferring the application for an indefinite period or disposing it of in a slipshod or cursory manner.
It noted that according to the command and mandate of Article 23 of the Constitution, every citizen has a right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property in any part of Pakistan, subject to the Constitution and any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest. All at once, it is engrained and embedded under Article 24 of the Constitution that no person shall be deprived of his property save in accordance with the law with certain exceptions.
The judgment said that while exercising discretionary powers for allowing or disallowing an application for interim custody, the Court must also consider the constitutional provisions to ensure that withholding custody without any rhyme or reason does not flout or violate or infringe upon fundamental rights as enshrined under the Constitution.
It also said that the Court must aptly uphold a good sense of implementation of law, but on the other hand, it is obligated to shield and safeguard the rights of individuals in order to ensure justice without protracted detentions or delays of such interlocutory applications, as long as it does not compromise the legal proceedings.
The Court clarified that the scheme of law permitting the interim custody of vehicle on superdari neither amounts to prejudice the trial, nor gives a clean chit to the accused, nor does it relieve or exempt the owner/recipient of custody from pending legal proceedings.
However, the duration of the interim custody may continue subject to the bond and surety till the final fate of the case, till then, the person allowed interim custody is duty-bound under the law to attend, participate, and produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Court.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025