MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.-- The petitioner, District Population Welfare Officer, D.I. Khan, is aggrieved of the order dated 19-4-2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, D.I. Khan, whereby his application for return of the case property, i.e, cash amount of Rs,3,77,545/72, involved in case F.I.R. No,477 dated 2-10-1997 registered under sections 302/404/34, P.P.C. Read with section 17(4)
Haraabah, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 of Police Station Cantt: D.I. Khan was dismissed.
2. On the written report of Inayatullah Khan, the then Assistant District Population Welfare Officer D.I.
Khan, for having committed the murder of Ghulam Abbas Chowkidar and stolen away the aforesaid amount lying in the Safe of the office at the relevant time, the aforesaid case was registered initially against unknown persons. However, during investigation of the case, three accused, namely, Aziz Khan, Hakim Khan and Faizullah were arrested in the occurrence and out of the total stolen amount, Rs,3,25,300 were recovered form them. When tried, accused Aziz Khan was sentenced to death, while the remaining two accused were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 19-6-2000 of the learned Sessions Judge D.I. Khan. The case property, i.e, the recovered stolen amount was confiscated in favour of the State. According to the contents of the petition, the conviction and sentences of all the three accused have been upheld up to the apex Court.
3. It was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of the fact that report about the occurrence was made on the night between 1/2-10-1997 where theft was committed in the office of the petitioner and not only the culprits had stolen away the salaries of ancillary staff of the office amounting to Rs,3,77,545 but has also committed the murder of Ghulam Abbas, Chowkidar of the office for which the three accused named above were found guilty and on conviction sentenced them as mentioned above which were maintained upto the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, and despite the fact that an amount of Rs,3,25,300 out of the stolen amount was recovered from the accused, still the learned Sessions Judge has refused to return the case property, which is absolutely illegal, fanciful, arbitrary and unlawful.
4. The learned counsel for State, however, defended the impugned order on the ground that since the judgment of conviction and sentences of all the three accused recorded by the learned trial Judge has been maintained upto the apex Court of the country where the case property, i.e, the recovered amount of Rs,3,25,300 from the accused had been confiscated in favour of the State, therefore, the impugned order need not to be interfered with by this Court when it has already attained finality upto the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan.
5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order, I am, however, of the view that this revision petition merits acceptance. There is no denying the fact that theft was committed in the office of the petitioner and besides stolen away the salaries of ancillary staff of the office amounting to Rs,3,77,545/72 Ghulam Abbas., Chowkidar of the office was also done to death by the accused. The case was duly proved after trial and all the three accused were convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. As the case property was the salary of the staff members of the office of the petitioner which was duly proved on record, therefore, the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge is not sustainable.
6. Consequently, this revision petition is accepted, the impugned order dated 19-4-2008 of the learned Sessions Judge, D.I. Khan is set aside and the case property i.e, currency notes amounting to Rs,3,25,300 presently lying with Superintendent of Police D.I. Khan as endorsed in his letter No,13225 dated 29-5-1999 is ordered to be returned to the District Population Officer D.I. Khan through his Accounts Officer.
' Above are the reasons for my short order of even date.