Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Revision No. 414 of 1969, decided on 22nd March 1973.
‑‑ S.411 read with Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.517‑Disposal of recovered property‑Property not proved to be subject‑matter of offence‑To be restored to person from whom recovered‑‑Order to move civil Court in this respect, held, not proper.
Sardara v. Buta P L D 1950 Lah. 97 ref.
Kh. Sarfraz Ahmad for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 22nd March 1973.
Lai Hussain and his daughter‑in‑law Mst. Bashiran Bibi along with four others close relations of Lai Hussain were prosecuted under section 411, P. P. C. in the Court of Mr. E. U. Mahmood, M. I. C., Sialkot. The learned Magistrate gave the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted them of tile charge vide his judgment dated 28‑7‑1967. The alleged stolen articles (P. 2 to P. 10) in this case were ordered to be given to the party who establishes his ownership in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Lai Hussain and Mst. Bashiran Bibi petitioner felt aggrieved by his order and preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot, who vide his order dated 16‑12‑1963 dismissed the appeal. The petitioners have filed this revision petition which was admitted by an order of this Court dated 10‑6‑1969.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record of this case. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on Sardara v. Buta (P L D 1950 Lah. 97) to contend that after the acquittal the petitioner Mst. Bashiran Bibi is entitled to the alleged property. Learned counsel for the State was not able, to cite any authority to the contrary. It is an admitted fact that the alleged stolen property was recovered from the possession of Mst. Bashiran Bibi petitioner and she claimed it to be the owner of this property which was recovered from the house of Lal Hussain petitioner.
3. On going through the judgment of the Courts below one finds that in the cave in hand the property is not proved to be the subject‑matter of offence. It should be restored to the person from whom it had been taken. But I find that departure has been made in this case. I, therefore, set aside the impugned orders and accept this revision petition and direct that the articles (P. 2 to P. 10) be handed over to Mst. Bashiran Bibi petitioner.
Petition accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer