An open Transfer Deed is not a valid title document and does not transfer vehicle’s ownership under the Ordinance. In any case, if the transferee does not submit an application to the Motor Registering Authority for a change of ownership of a vehicle within 30 days following the transaction, it is null and void under section 32 of the Ordinance.
PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 601
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Tariq Saleem Sheikh, J.
MUHAMMAD AKRAM--Petitioner
versus
STATE, etc.--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 51580/M of 2022, head on 27.2.2023.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----Ss. 550, 523 to 525, 561-A--Superdari of a vehicle--When police seize a vehicle, and a person applies for its superdari, Magistrate sometimes calls a report from MRA--At times one of interested parties asks MRA to investigate title of its rival and cancel his registration – as happened in present case--Therefore, it is necessary first to define precise nature, scope, and extent of MRA’s jurisdiction--As adumbrated, there is no provision in Ordinance empowering MRA to decide any application challenging ownership of a motor vehicle or requesting it to conduct an inquiry and suspend or cancel registration owing to any dispute--Hence, car seller’s application before MRA was not maintainable and proceedings conducted on it were void--Consequently, Court must not consider Fingerprint Bureau’s report for deciding this petition--Fingerprint expert’s opinion is inconclusive--Further, Section 510, Cr.P.C. does not apply to proceedings before MRA, which is constituted under Ordinance, a special law--These are additional reasons why Court would not consider Fingerprint Bureau’s report while deciding this petition--Respondent No. 4 claims that he bought Car from through an open Transfer Deed – which inter alia implies an undated document--When this Transfer Deed and car seller affidavit are examined together, it is found that alleged transaction took place on 9.8.2010--According to available documentation, did not have right to sell Car on that date because it was still in Bank’s name--The matter does not end here--The Transfer Deed is not in form prescribed under Rule 47(1) of Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969--Further, an open Transfer Deed is not a valid title document and does not transfer vehicle’s ownership under Ordinance--In any case, if transferee does not submit an application to MRA for a change of ownership of a vehicle within 30 days following transaction, it is null and void under Section 32 of Ordinance. [Pp. 606, 609, 611 & 612] A, D, J, K & L
Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 (XIX of 1965)--
----S. 2(23)--The Motor Vehicles Ordinance XIX of 1965 (the “Ordinance”) regulates motor vehicles in province--According to Section 2(23) thereof, “motor vehicle means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads, whether power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source, and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached or a tractor and a trailer; a combined harvester, a rig, a fork lifter, a road roller, construction, and earth moving machinery, such as a wheel loader, a crane, an excavator, a grader, a dozer and a pipe layer, a road making and a road/sewerage cleaning plant but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or used solely upon premises of owner.” Section 23(1) states that no one shall drive any vehicle, and no motor vehicle owner shall cause or permit his vehicle to be driven in any place unless it is registered under Chapter III and has a registration mark displayed in prescribed manner--Sections 24 to 28 set out procedure for registering a motor vehicle--Section 32 speaks of subsequent transfer of ownership--It stipulates that transferee shall, within 30 days of transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle registered under Ordinance, report transfer to MRA within whose jurisdiction he ordinarily resides along with prescribed documents as proof of change of ownership and payment of prescribed fee--The MRA shall update records and issue a new registration certificate--Section 34 enumerates instances under which MRA may suspend a motor vehicle registration certificate, and Section 35 lists circumstances under which MRA may cancel it. [Pp. 606 & 607] B
Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 (XIX of 1965)--
----Ss. 34(1)(e), 34(5) & 35--Sindh High Court considered whether MRA could adjudicate upon and give a finding on legality of a sale transaction and title of a party--It ruled that party claiming breach of contract or trust should file a civil suit--It has no remedy under Sections 34 or 35 of Ordinance--Clause (e) of Section 34(1) of Ordinance, which provides that MRA may suspend registration certificate of a vehicle if a substantially false statement had been made in application for its registration, cannot be expanded to allow MRA to assume jurisdiction--Judge also referred to Section 34(5) of Ordinance, which states that where suspension has continued without interruption for not less than six months, MRA may cancel registration and entry relating to vehicle in its record--His Lordship held that power of cancellation of registration is limited to instances mentioned in Section 35 of Ordinance, namely: (a) motor vehicle has been destroyed; (b) motor vehicle has been rendered permanently incapable of use; or (c) MRA is satisfied that motor vehicle has been permanently removed from province--The MRA cannot decide disputes relating to title of vehicles in garb of Section 34(5). [P. 608] C
2005 MLD 176.
Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (10 of 1984)--
----Arts. 59, 61, 78 & 100--At this stage, at cost of digression, Court may allude to Articles 59, 61, 78, and 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984--According to Article 59, when Court has to form an opinion on point of foreign law, science, or art, or identity of handwriting or finger impression, or authenticity of an electronic document, opinions of experts in those fields are relevant facts--Article 61 deals with situation when Court has to form an opinion about person who wrote or signed a document--It states that opinion of any person acquainted with handwriting of person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person is a relevant fact--Article 78 deals with proof of a person’s signature and handwriting--It stipulates that if a question arises whether a document was signed or written by a particular person, his signature or handwriting, as case may be, on that document must be proved--Article 100 attaches some presumptions to thirty years old documents. [P. 609] E
Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (10 of 1984)--
----Art. 164--Judicial confession--Article 164 of Qanun-e-Shahadat provides that Courts may allow any evidence that may have become available because of modern devices and techniques--Proviso to Article 164, added in year 2017, provides that conviction based on modern devices and techniques may be lawful--Article 164, read with Article 59, inter alia, allows modern forensic science to enter Courts through experts’ credible and valued scientific opinions as evidence to arrive at truth. [Pp. 609 & 610] F
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 510--Ex-pert opinion of handwriting--Qanun-e-Shahadat makes expert opinion admissible, but Section 510, Cr.P.C. states special rules of evidence and simplifies evidentiary procedure by providing that reports of chemical examiner, serologist, fingerprint expert, or firearm expert may be used in any trial without calling Government Chemical Examiner, Serologist, or other expert as a witness--The superior Courts have considered Section 510, Cr.P.C. in several cases--While interpreting Section 510, Cr.P.C. (and above-mentioned amendment), we must, on one hand, distinguish between admissibility and procedure for adducing handwriting expert’s report in evidence and, on other hand, its probative value--The law only makes report admissible without expert’s examination, but it is not conclusive evidence--The probative value of report must depend upon a variety of circumstances.
[P. 610] G & H
1996 MLD 460 & PLD 2021 SC 362 ref.
Handwriting Expert’s Opinion--
----The jurisprudence developed over years is that handwriting expert’s opinion is relevant, but it is a weak type of evidence--It should not be treated as conclusive evidence to prove a fact.
0 Comments