' HASNAT AHMED KHAN, J.--- The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition were/are that on the written application of the petitioner a case F.I.R. No,278 of 2007, dated 18-9-2007, was registered with Police Station Pahrianwali in respect of an offence under section 379, P.P.C. Against unknown thieves, who had allegedly stolen seven buffaloes owned by the petitioner on the night between 16th and 17th of September, 2007. After the registration of case the petitioner nominated -six accused as culprits of the said crime through a supplementary statement. Consequently, out of said six nominated accused, four accused namely Gultbar Khan, Nazir-ur-Rehman Khan, Jahangir Khan and Muhammad Arif were arrested by the police, and also during the investigation the stolen cattle were taken into possession by the police on the pointing out of the said accused vide recovery memo. Dated 28-10-2007. Thereafter, section 411, P.P.C. Was also added in the list of offences.
2. After recovery of the stolen cattle, the petitioner applied for Superdari of the said cattle and after seeking report from the Station House Officer concerned, the Judicial Magistrate allowed the application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 29-10-2007. Consequently, the cattle in question were handed over to the petitioner on Superdari. Thereafter, respondent No,5 filed a criminal revision against the order dated 29-10-2007, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Phalia, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin, Camp at Phalia. The said revision petition was accepted vide order, dated 23-10-2008, hence this petition.
3. In support of this petition learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned revisional Court while accepting the revision petition, filed by respondent No,5, failed to appreciate the facts of the case and the law in true perspective; that the learned revisional Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner had lodged the F.I.R. Quite promptly and during the investigation of the said case the cattle were recovered by the police from the possession of Muhammad Arif, accused, who, along with others, was nominated in this case vide a supplementary statement; that all the four accused named in this case made their confessional statements before the trial Court, consequently, they were .Convicted and sentenced to 10-1/2 months' R.I. Each; that respondent No,5 submitted an application for the registration of a case after an unexplained delay of more than two months; that the application submitted by respondent No,5 for Superdari of the cattle in question was rightly dismissed by the learned trial Court; that two of the co-accused are absconders and the trial against them is still pending adjudication, and that the learned revisional Court gave undue importance to the findings given by a D.S.P., who was entrusted enquiry on the basis of the orders passed by the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace on the move of respondent No,5.
4. Conversely, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,5 has attempted to defend the impugned order by contending that no illegality was committed by the learned revisional Court while accepting the revision petition filed by respondent No,5; that on the dint of the false F.I.R.
Registered on the application of the petitioner the police illegally recovered the cattle which were, in fact, owned by respondent No,5; that the said fact was duly established during the enquiry which was conducted by the D.S.P.; that a number of people submitted their affidavits in support of contesting respondent's claim; that though according to the contents of the F.I.R. Lodged by the petitioner seven cattle-heads were stolen but the police recovered 17 cattle from the outhouse of respondent No,5 and that a well-reasoned order passed by the revisional Court cannot be set aside under the provisions of section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner lodged the F.I.R. Claiming theft of his cattle quite promptly. After registration of case the petitioner nominated six accused as culprits of the theft vide 'a supplementary statement. Out of the said six accused, four accused including Muhammad Arif, who is real brother of respondent No,5, were arrested by the police and the cattle in question were recovered from, the out-house of the aforesaid Muhammad Arif. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for having the custody of the recovered cattle on Superdari. The said application, after receipt of the report. Submitted by the S.H.O. Concerned, was duly accepted by the learned Magistrate. The record reveals that all the said accused who were arrested in this case as cattle lifters confessed to their crime before the learned trial Court and, consequently, they were convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 24-9-2008. While convicting the said accused the learned trial Court passed the following order qua the question of custody of the stolen property: "Case property be handed over to its lawful owner upon expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any, otherwise be forfeited in favour of the State."
' It is not the case of the contesting respondent that the said judgment was ever challenged before any higher forum, meaning thereby that the said judgment has attained the finality. However, in the meanwhile respondent No,5 submitted an application before the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace for registration of case against Station House Officer, Pahrianwali, the petitioner and some others. On the said application the learned Additional Sessions Judge instead of passing an order of registration of case directed the D.P.O. Mandi Bahauddin, to entrust the matter to the Police Officer not below the rank of D.S.P. To ascertain the truth or falsehood of the petitioner therein vide order, dated 8-3-2008.
7. In view of the Bahauddin, conducted an the Investigating Officer house of Muhammad Muhammad Arif. Said order, D.S.P., Headquarters, Mandi enquiry, and came to the conclusion that had recovered the cattle from the outNawaz/respondent No,5 instead of Muhammad Arif.
The said enquiry report became the basis of the impugned order. While passing the impugned order, the learned revisional Court failed to appreciate that the accused implicated in the case registered on the move of the petitioner had been convicted and sentenced under section 379 read with section 411, P.P.C. On the basis of their confessional statements. The said conviction and sentence attained finality. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge gave undue importance to the findings of the D.S.P. Over the judicial verdict. While giving undue!" importance to the findings of the D.S.P., the learned revisional Court failed to appreciate that on the move of respondent No,5 the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace had not passed any order for registration of case on the application moved by respondent No,5 under section 22-A, Cr.P.C., rather an order for holding an enquiry was passed by him, which was held by the D.S.P. Without registration of any case. It is an established law that investigation of a cognizable offence cannot precede the registration of a case, and, therefore, no evidentiary value could be attached to the enquiry report submitted by the D.S.P. In view of the order passed by the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace. The documents brought on record by respondent No,5 reveal, that on the basis of the said enquiry report an application for contempt of Court was also moved by respondent No,5. However, the said application was disposed of by learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace with a direction to the S.P.
(Investigation) to conduct the investigation and submit a report to the said Court. It is not understandable that how the investigation could be conducted without the registration of a case.
9. A perusal of the impugned order further reveals that the same is based on surmises and conjectures and the finding of the D.S.P. Was treated as a judicial finding without appreciating that respondent No,5 never filed any civil suit in order to seek declaration in his favour qua the ownership of the cattle in question. Further, no criminal case stood registered at his instance. It further appears that instead of applying his own judicial mind the learned revisional Court exhaustively relied upon the finding of the D.S.P. Returned on the enquiry. While doing so, it was not appreciated that even the findings of the police returned during the investigation are not binding on the Courts, then how could findings of any Police Officer on the basis of his enquiry could be given any evidentiary value. The speculative attitude of the learned revisional Court is reflected from the following paragraph of the impugned order:--- "Enquiry was conducted by D.S.P. Who is fairly a Senior Officer and has more experience than the Investigating Officer of the relevant cases and I am not inclined to disagree with the finding recorded by D.S.P."
10. The learned revisional Court failed to appreciate that respondent No,5, who is the real brother of one of the convicts of case F.I.R. No,278 of 2007, dated 18-9-2007, under sections 379/411, P.P.C. At Police Station Pahrianwali, which was registered at the instance of the petitioner, had indirectly tried to frustrate the process of law and judicial finding of conviction of the accused nominated in the said case on the allegation of theft and keeping the stolen property in their possession by claiming that the recovered stolen property in fact belonged to him. While setting aside the impugned order, whereby the Superdari of the cattle in question was handed over to the petitioner, the learned revisional Court failed to appreciate that after passing the judgment of conviction in case F.I.R. No,278 of 2007, the initial order of Superdari had merged into the final judgment which could only be set aside on the appeal or revision filed by the convicts of the said case.
11. For all that has been observed above, I find that the impugned order is illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction, therefore, the same is set aside by exercising the inherent powers of this Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.