Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 1970, decided on 3rd November 1971

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 11th June 1970, in Criminal Revision No. 950 of 1969).

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),

S. 517‑Disposal of property on conclusion of trial‑Provisions of S. 517 place no compulsion on Court to return property to person from whom same was taken‑Court in proper circumstances may not return property to person from whom it had been taken‑M (com plainant) in a case under S. 382, P. P. C. complaining that S and his companions had trespassed and carried away his cattle pleading that heads of cattle had been made over to him by complainant, at instance of panchayat, on account of debt due from M to S‑S acquitted but Magistrate refusing to return cattle to S on ground that cattle originally belonged to M and that debt due from M to S was not proved‑Order of Magistrate, held, proper‑S if he had any grievance had to pursue his remedy in civil Court.

Central Co‑operative Bank Ltd. v. Ahmad Bakhsh P L D 1970 S C 343 ref.

Mushtaq Ahmad Khawaja, Advocate‑on‑Record Supreme Court for Appellant.

Nusratullah, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Ijaz All Sheikh, Advocate‑on- Record for the State.

Ghulam Sarwar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing : 3rd November 1971.

This appeal by special leave is from an order of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, accepting the revisional application of respondent No. 2, and directing that the cattle in question shall remain with respondent No. 2.

It appears that on the complaint of respondent No. 2 Muhammad Ali, the appellant and ten other persons were tried under section 382 of the Pakistan Penal Code and finally acquitted. The 'complainant had alleged that the appellant and his companions, armed with firearms and other lethal weapons, 'trespassed into the house of the complainant and took away two buffaloes, 2 bullocks, young one of a buffalo and 7 goats that belonged to him.

The defence of the appellant and his co‑accused was that the complainant had owed a sum of Rs. 2,300 to the appellant and his father, and at the intervention of a Panchayat the aforesaid heads of cattle had been made over by the com plainant to the appellant and his father on account of or in settle ment of the said debt.

Although the appellant and the co‑accused were acquitted of the charge, the learned Magistrate refused to return the cattle to the appellant from whose possession they were taken into custody on the ground that both the parties said that the cattle originally belonged to respondent No. 2 and that the appellant failed to prove that they had been made over to him by the Panchayat.

The appellant's appeal to the learned Additional Sessions Judge was allowed and the cattle was directed to be given to the appellant.

The High Court accepted the revisional application of res pondent No. 2 and directed the restoration of the cattle to respondent No. 2.

It has been strenuously contended on behalf of the appellant that the criminal case having, ended in acquittal, the cattle should have been returned to the person from whom they were taken, viz. the appellant, and in support of this contention the decision in P L D 191U S C 343 has been cited before us. The case under report has clearly laid down that although the ordinary principle is that when the offence is not proved the property is to be returned to the person from whom it has been taken in an exceptional circum stance, however, this principle is not applicable. The case was considered to be of an exceptional circumstance and the property was not returned to the person from whom it had been taken. Section 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as is evident from its language places no compulsion on the part of the criminal Court to return the property to the person from whom it is taken. On the contrary it makes it discretionary on the part of the Court to make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal of the property by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession there of or otherwise.

The appellant has even failed to prove that any debt was owed to him by respondent No. 2.

The appellant has failed to make out any case for our interference with the impugned order of the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

We should, however, like to observe that if the appellant is so advised, he may pursue his remedy in a civil Court, and no observations made by the High Court or the Courts below Will, in any way, influence the trial of the suit.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.