IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN  
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT:  
MR. JUSTICE MUSHIR ALAM 
MR. JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL 
MR. JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO.800-P OF 2019  
(Against the order dated 14.11.2019 passed by 
Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, in W.P.362-
P/2019) 
 
 
Government of KPK through Secretary Excise & 
Taxation Department, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and 
others  
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
                                        VERSUS 
Sarfaraz Khan and another 
 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Malik Akhtar Hussain, Addl.AG KPK 
 
 
On Court’s Notice: 
 
 
 
 
For Respondent-1: 
Syed Hamad Ali Shah, Legal Officer KP 
Excise Dept. 
Mr. Shakil Ahmed, Inspector Motor 
Registration Authority Sargodha 
 
In-person. 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
28.05.2020 
 
O R D E R 
 
MUSHIR ALAM, J.— The petitioners, Government of KPK through 
Secretary Excise & Taxation Department, Civil Secretariat, 
Peshawar and others, have impugned judgment dated 14.11.2019, 
passed by learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court, 
Peshawar, in W.P.362-P/2019, whereby the orders passed by the 
authorities seizing the subject vehicle were set aside.  
2. 
 
Precise facts giving rise to the present controversy are 
that the subject vehicle bearing registration No.SGF-2992, Model 
No.1989, having Chassis No.LN85-0010554, was seized on 
CP 800-P/19                          2 
 
27.01.2017. On forensic examination, it was found “welded and 
refitted chassis frame”. This action was challenged by the 
Respondent No.1 before the learned Peshawar High Court and the 
learned High Court in consideration of the fact that the record has 
neither been called from the concerned Excise and Taxation Officer 
Sargodha nor have they directed the petitioner to produce the 
same before it and such exercise of the authority was not in 
accordance with law and the impugned action was held to be 
without lawful authority and jurisdiction and the subject vehicle 
was ordered to be handed over to the Respondent-1 herein.  
3. 
 
Notice was issued to the respondent, who claim to be 
the owner of the subject vehicle as well as excise department 
Sargodha and the Investigating Officer of Police, Peshawar.  
4. 
 
Officer 
concerned 
from 
the 
excise 
department 
appeared and produced original registration record of the subject 
vehicle. From the record, it appears that some alteration has been 
made in the vehicle and the Respondent claims that he has 
purchased the vehicle from Muhammad Yaqoob, whose name 
appears in the record at Page-38 of the Court file. However, the 
subject vehicle was seized on 27.01.2017 and during its seizure 
period, its ownership was transferred in the name of Respondent-1 
on 04.02.2017. Therefore, the contention of the Respondent that 
he has purchased the vehicle from Muhammad Yaqoob is not 
borne out from the record. Even otherwise, under Section 33 of the 
Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, applicable to both the 
Provinces of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa as well as Punjab, reads as 
follow: 
CP 800-P/19                          3 
 
“33.  Alteration in motor vehicle.(1) If a motor 
vehicle is so altered that the particulars contained in 
the certificate of registration are no longer accurate, 
the owner of the vehicle shall within fourteen days of 
the making of any such alteration, report the 
alteration to the registering authority within whose 
jurisdiction he resides and shall forward the 
certificate of registration of the vehicle to that 
authority together with the prescribed fee in order 
that particulars of the alteration may be entered 
therein 
 
Provided that it shall not be necessary to 
report any change in the unladen weight of the motor 
vehicle consequent on the addition or removal of 
fitting or accessories, if such change does not exceed 
two per cent of weight entered in certificate of 
registration.  
 
(2) A registering authority other than the 
original registering authority making any such entry 
shall communicate the details of the entry to the 
original registering authority.  
Punjab Amendment 
 
In Section 33, in subsection (1), for the words 
“entered therein” the words “updated in the record 
and shall issue a new certificate of registration and 
license number plates, if required” shall be inserted.” 
 
5. 
 
In the Province of Punjab, Section 33 of the Ordinance 
was amended through the Provincial Motor Vehicle (Amendment) 
Act 
XLVIII 
of 
2016, 
which 
requires 
that 
all 
such 
additions/alterations shall be updated in the record and shall 
issue a new certificate of registration and license number plates, if 
required. Respondent No.1 states Rule 33 (ibid) is applicable when 
there is a change carried out by replacing the chassis numbers 
and there are different modes of change and adjustment for the 
purpose of modification and he has not done any change. It may be 
observed that Section 33 (ibid) as reproduced above does not 
distinguish alteration in the motor vehicles in any manner 
whatsoever. Any alteration effected in the vehicle is required to be 
reported within 14 days to the authority in whose jurisdiction the 
CP 800-P/19                          4 
 
owner resides and the authority is required to issue a certificate of 
registration of the subject vehicle to the concerned authority where 
such alteration has to be entered into. In a case  reported as Sultan 
Muhammad versus Collector Customs and another (2015 PTD 570) 
the question as to welding and refilled old chassis plate of the 
same vehicle amounts to altering  of the original chassis number 
came up for consideration. Learned Bench after considering large 
number of cases in para-7 at page-586, opined (vi) & (viii) and at 
page-588 held: 
 
(vi) 
“Tempering” of chassis number of the vehicle, 
include any alteration of the original chassis   
number of the vehicle, whether manual or otherwise 
OR cutting a piece of the frame and re-welding 
another piece thereon OR chassis number filled with 
welding material and then restamped.  
(vii) 
…………. 
 
(viii) 
Tempering of chassis number as a result of an 
accident of the vehicle could only be a valid ground, 
if the same was reported to and confirmed by the 
Motor Vehicle Authorities under Section 33 of the 
Motor Vehicle Ordinance, 1965. 
…………………………….. 
 
Presenting documentation, relating to the said 
“tampered” 
vehicle 
from 
the 
Motor 
Vehicle 
Authority, 
without 
specific 
approval 
for 
the 
alteration in the chassis of engine number, as 
envisaged under section 33 of the Motor Vehicle 
Ordinance, 1965 (“Ordinance”) would be of no legal 
avail. 
 
Moreover, allowing a vehicle, having “tampered” 
chassis number, even with registration book from 
the Motor Vehicle Authority, would surely offend 
and abuse the provisions of the Act/Ordinance and 
the Policy of the Federal Government reflected in 
CP 800-P/19                          5 
 
Circular No.10(1)AS/2004 dated 11-12-2007 read 
with S.R.O. No.568(1)/2008, dated 11-6-2008.”  
   
 
 
 
6. 
 
No 
such 
exercise 
was 
undertaken. 
Respondent 
concedes that such alteration was not carried out by him but by 
the person from whom he has purchased the vehicle. The liability 
and responsibility vest on the person making such alteration in 
any manner whatsoever. If the Respondent has purchased the 
same 
without 
taking 
due 
care 
and 
complying 
with 
the 
requirements of law, he cannot claim to be a bona fide purchaser. 
Needless to say that he may, if so advised, claim damages from the 
person from whom he purchased the subject vehicle.   
7. 
 
In view of what has been discussed above, the 
impugned judgment cannot be sustained. Accordingly, this petition 
is converted into appeal and allowed and the impugned judgment 
is set aside.  
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
ISLAMABAD 
11th May, 2020 
Mudassar/                               “Approved for Reporting” 
Judge