SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J.---Through this judgment we intend to decide Criminal Appeals Nos.1803,1685 and 1692 of 2006, as having arisen out of the same judgment, passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No,1, Lahore, in a case arising out of F.I.R. No,103, dated 29-12- 2005, registered in Police Station, Railway Workshop, Mughalpura, Lahore, under sections 337-J, 457, 380, 353, 109, 411, P.P.C. read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
2. The appellants,namely, Muhammad Nawaz, Muhammad Shahbaz alias Bajoo, Ishfaq Waseem alias Kala, Abid Mehmood and Saleem Sultan were tried in the aforesaid case by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No,1, Lahore. At the conclusion of the trial, vide judgment dated 1-11-2006, the accused were convicted and sentenced as follows:-- Muhammad Nawaz, Muhammad Shahbaz and Saleem Sultan:--
(i) Under section 337-J, P.P.C. Imprisonment for 10 years each along with an amount of Rs,20,000 each as 'daman'.
(ii) Under section 380, P.P.C. Imprisonment for 7 years each, along with a fine of Rs,10,000 each.
(iv) Under section 457, P.P.C. Imprisonment for 5 years each along with a fine of Rs,20,000 each.
(iv) Under section 353, P.P.C. Imprisonment for 2 years each.
(v) Under section 7(h) of ATA, 1997: Imprisonment for 10 years each and a fine of Rs,10,000 each.
The appellant/Muhammad Nawaz has also been ordered to pay Rs,30 lac to the Incharge DPM Office, Railway Workshop, Mughalpura, under section 544-A, Cr.P.C.
Abid Mehmood and Ishfaq Waseem: Under section 380, P.P.C. read with section 21(i) of ATA, 1997:--Imprisonment for 7 years each and a fine of Rs,10,000 each.
All the aforementioned sentences have been ordered to run consecutively. The convicts have challenged their conviction and sentences through the appeals mentioned in para.1 above.
2. The prosecution case, as set up in the F.I.R. by the complainant/Arshad Ahmad, DPM, Railway Workshop, Division Mughalpura, Lahore is that on 28-12-2005, after drawing the salary of labour amounting to Rs,3,61,06,207 from the State Bank of Pakistan, 'he delivered it to Phoenix Cash Transportation Agency, which was returned to him at 4.00 p.m., and he deposited the said cash in the Strong Room and sealed it in accordance with the Rules. On 29-12-2005, at 7-00/7-15 a.m., he came to know through Khalid, Inspector, that the cash was looted by Muhammad Nawaz, 97-C with the help of his co-accused, after serving intoxicating food to the police officials deployed there. The complainant found that the DPM office was locked by a private lock while the official lock of the Strong Room was missing. One constable/ Kamran Rafi was found locked in the Strong Room. After breaking the lock when they entered the Strong Room, they found that both arms of Kamran Rafi were tied at his back and three bags of cash were missing.
3. On receiving information of the occurrence, Muhammad Anwar, Inspector (P.W.22) reached the place of occurrence, he got the lock of the outer gate broken and when he entered the DPM office he found Muhammad Asif, Constable lying senseless. In Guard Room seven other police officials were also lying senseless, while Kamran Rafi, Constable was locked in the Strong Room. On being released from the Strong Room, Kamran Rafi, Constable told that on the preceding night of 28-12- 2005, at 11-40 p.m. when he arrived in DPM office, Muhammad Nawaz opened the Gate and took him inside the office and when he enquired about the rifle of Muhammad Nawaz, accused, he told that the rifle was in DPM office. Thereafter two persons appeared from different sides and made his hands up on gun point, and Muhammad Nawaz, accused placed a 'chadar' on his face, pushed him inside and made him laid on the grassy ground and threatened him of fire shot if he raised hue and cry. They detained him in the Strong Room. The following articles were also taken into possession by the police from the place of occurrence:-- Cut lock (P.3), "chadar" (P-2), wire of charger (P-4), seven leather pouches (P.5/1-7), one pouch containing 20 bullets each (P.6/1-50), three chargers (P.7/ 1-3), plastic seals (P.8/1-3), bag (P-9), Lock (P-10), large china lock (P-11), purse (P.12) containing currency notes (P.13/1-7), receipt of sweet shop (P-15), one photo (P-14), vide recovery memo. Exh.PP.A small lock (P-16), vide recovery memo.
Exh.P.Q. Motorcycle No,5908-LRX, vide recovery memo. Exh.P.R.
Muhammad Anwar, Inspector prepared rough site plan of place of occurrence (Ex.PCC) and thereafter on return of the police officials from the hospital, who were given intoxicating food, recorded their statements. The investigation was completed and the accused, namely, Muhammad Nawaz, Muhammad Shahbaz, Ishfaq Waseem alias Kala, Abid Mahmood and Saleem Sultan were challaned and sent for facing trial in the above said case.
4. The accused denied the charges levelled against them and while pleading not guilty claimed to be tried, whereupon the prosecution was invited to adduce evidence in support of its case.
4A. The prosecution, in order to prove its case examined 27 witnesses in all. Muhammad Anwar, H.C.
(P.W.1) recorded the F.I.R. (Exh.P.A/1) and also received 8 sealed parcels of syringes along with 8 sealed parcels of material sent by the doctor, which he sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner through Abdul Jabbar, H.C. Qasim Mahmood, (P.W.2), Manager, the Bank of Punjab, Bahawalpur deposed that on 28-2-2006, the accused/Muhammad Nawaz came to the Bank in the company of police and presented a cheque amounting to Rs,10 lac for encashment. He prepared the payment order and handed over the payment to the accused, which he gave to the police. The witness produced attested copy of the payment order, which was taken into possession, vide recovery Memo. Exh.P.S. Nadeem Latif (P.W.3) deposed that the accused/Muhammad Nawaz had struck a bargain with him for the purchase of a house for Rs,27,50,000, out of which he had paid Rs,20,00,000, which were returned to him by the P.W. and the same were taken into possession by the police. P.W.4/Hassan Farooq, Manager, Punjab Bank, Garhi Shahu Branch, Lahore deposed that the accused/Muhammad Nawaz in the custody of police came to get encashed a cheque of Rs,10,00,000 and produced photocopy of payment order (P.1). Tahir Hussain, 38/H.C. (P.W.5) is one of the witnesses who were deployed at DPM office on the day of occurrence. He deposed that Muhammad Nawaz Wahga, accused had served him intoxicating food along with the other police constables/ guards.
5. Dr. Muhammad Zafar (P.W.6) medically examined Tahir Hussain, Ijaz, Muhammad Asif, Shahbaz, Gulzar Hussain, Abdul Sattar, Faiz, Tahir Mahmood, Constables. His reports are Exh.P.D. to Exh.P.H, Exh.P.J to Exh.P.M. This P.W. found all the above said persons in drowsy condition, at the time of their medical examination. Sadiq Ali (P.W.7) deposed that on 28-12-2005 he issued cheques amounting to Rs,2,87,85,956 Rs,66,50,197 Rs,2650, Rs,38,448 Rs,3,46,326 to lncharge DPM. Muhammad Mustafa (P.W.8) verified the fact of issuance of cheque of Rs,2,82,630 to Arshad, Incharge, DPM. Muhammad Asif, Constable (P .W.9) is one of the Police Officials, who were served intoxicating food. He deposed about arrival of Saleem Sultan, Constable No,522 along with a private person, who was introduced by Muhammad Nawaz/accused as Muhammad Shahbaz and belonging to his 'bradari'.
Muhammad Nawaz asked Saleem Sultan to take Muhammad Shahbaz with him for serving tea.
Thereafter Muhammad Nawaz and Ijaz Constable went to bring food on a motorcycle and on their return they were served with food, upon which they became unconscious. Ijaz Ahmed, 210/C (P.W.10) narrated the same story as stated by P.W.9. He also stated that the accused/ Muhammad Nawaz had offered the food on the pretext that he was blessed with a son. P.W.11 is the .cook of the hotel, from where the accused had purchased 250 gram chicken and 3 kg. chicken separately for Rs,750. Muhammad Naeem Maqsood, . Constable (P.W.12) deposed that on 28-12-2005, at 12-30 night when he 'came to DPM office, Muhammad Nawaz/accused was on duty. This P.W. handed over his rifle to Muhammad Nawaz/accused for depositing with the office. Khalid Mahmood, S.-I. (P .W.13) was Incharge Guard on the day of occurrence. He deposed that at 4.00 p.m. cash arrived in DPM office, the 'DPM Officer placed the cash in Strong Room, which was sealed and thereafter he went to his house. He came to know of the occurrence next day. P.W.14/Arshad Ahmad (complainant) reiterated his version' as narrated in the F.I.R. Akmal Sheikh, P.W.15 stated that he' is owner of Car No,9849-LOM, and the accused Ashfaq Waseeni alias Kala was his driver, who had taken the vehicle from him on the pretext of going with a customer. P.W.16/Intizar Ahnaad Qureshi, DSP Special Branch, Railway Police, Lahore is the witness of encashment of cheque Rs,10 lac from the bank at Bahawalpur. Kamran Rafi (P.W.17) deposed the facts as narrated in para 3 above.
6. Muhammad. Sarfraz, S.-I (P .W.18) investigated the instant case. He took into possession Car No,4046-LPT. He arrested the accused/ Shahbaz Wahga on 19-2-2006 from Railway Station, Kot Lakhpat, along with 20 packets of currency notes (P.17/1-20), SMG rifle (P.18), bullets (P.19/1-4). The accused/Shehbaz also got recovered Rs 21 lac from his house. This witness also arrested Muhammad Nawaz Wahga/accused on 21-2-2006, while he was travelling in Car No, 9849-LOM along with Ashfaq Waseem, and recovered from his 'possession Rs,2,36,77,000, lying in the "diggy" of the car. Ashfaq Waseem got recovered an electric grinder (P-46) and Rs,15,000 (P .47/1-15). On 25- 2-2006, the accused/ Abid Mehmood also got recovered Rs,15,000 and a- Motorolla walkie-talkie set from his house. The P.W. further recovered Rs,20 lac from Muhammad Nawaz/accused which he had given to Nadeem Latif for the purchase of a house. Muhammad Nawaz/accused also got recovered Rs,17,86,350 from his house at. Bahawalpur. The arrest of the accused/Saleem Sultan was effected on 27-3-2006, who got recovered Rs .1,04,000 from his box lying in a barrack. Pervez Akhtar (P.W.19) is the witness of the amount recovered from Muhammad Nawaz/ accused. Abdul Razzaq, A.S.-I. (P.W.20) is another witness of the amount recovered from. Muhammad Nawaz/accused. Arshad. Mahmood (P.W.20) cut the lock of Strong Room on the asking of Khizar Hayat, Inspector. P.W.&Muhatnmad Anwar, Inspector conducted the preliminary investigation of the case and he deposed about the steps taken .by him at the time of his visit to the place of occurrence. Abdul Wajid Kiani, DSP (P.W.23) produced Muhammad Nawaz before the Manager, Bank of Punjab, Bahawalpur for encashment of cheque amounting to 10 lac. Ramzan Haider, A.S.-I.
(P .W.24) is the witness of encashment of cheque amounting to 10 lac by the accused/ Muhammad Nawaz, from, Bank of Punjab, Garhi Shahu Branch, Lahore Muhammad Farid, A.S.-I. (P.W.25) is the witness of recovery of car (P.77) and the amount recovered from the accused/Shahbaz Wahga and lshfaq Waseem Muhammad Latif, A.S.-I. (P .W.26) is also the recovery witness while Abdul Jalil/HC (P.W.27) had obtained reports from the doctor, which he produced before the I.0'.
7. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellants/ convicts were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In reply to a particular question as to why this case has been registered against him and why the. P.Ws. have deposed against him, the accused/ appellant/ Muhammad Nawaz took the stand that on 28-12-2005, when he arrived in DPM Office, Asif, Constable called him to see Col. Tahir. Col. Tahir took him to a house, where he was detained, and later on involved in the present case.
The accused/Muhammad Shehbaz stated that his involvement in the present case is due to the resistance, which he showed when the police tried to take away the wife of the accused/Muhammad Nawaz from the village. Saleem Sultan/accused stated that he is not involved in this case as he has neither been nominated in the F.I.R. nor in the supplementary.statement and that he has been performing his duties and receiving salaries even after the alleged occurrence. The accused/Ashfaq Waseem also pleaded his false involvement in this case Abid Mehmood stated that he is employed as a driver of ambulance of Social' Security Hospital, Shandra and drives a taxi as part time job He further stated that the accused/Muhammad Nawaz had hired his taxi and he was paid fare of 2,000. The accused also produced D.W.1. to D.W.3 in support of their defence.
8. The conclusion of the trial resulted in conviction and sentences to the appellants as aforementioned, which have been impugned by them through the instant appeals.
9. Mr. lnayatullah Cheema, Advocate/the learned counsel for the appellant/Muhammad Nawaz, at the beginning of his arguments, opted not to challenge the conviction of the appellant/Muhammad Nawaz, and confined himself only to-the extent of pleading for converting his sentence from "consecutive" to "concurrent". He argued that the aggregate of the sentences awarded to the appellant comes to 34 years' R.I. and by ordering, these sentences to run "consecutively" instead of "concurrently" the learned trial Court has committed a sheer mistake, as it is violative of the statutory provision contained in section 35, Cr.P.C., which, in case of conviction in several offences, at one trial, provides the maximum sentence of 14 years. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the cases of Javed Shaikh v. The State SCMR 153; Juma Khan and another v. The State (1986 SCM R 1573), Muhammad Ittefaq v. The State (1986 SCM R 1627), Khan Zaman and another v. The State (1987 SCM R 1382), Faridullah Shah and another v. The State (1990 PCr.LJ 1945), Mst. Zubaida v. Falak Sher and another (2007 SCM R 548). The learned counsel further argued that even otherwise no offence under section 7(h) of the ATA, 1997 is proved against the appellant and, as such his conviction under section 7(h) of the ATA, 1997 is liable to be set aside.
The learned counsel has also contended that the commission of offence under section 353, P.P.C. was also not proved against the appellant, as administering of poison, could not be established against the appellant even from the medical evidence. The learned counsel lastly, argued that as the appellant has been awarded maximum sentence provided for the offences, the quantum, of sentence being harsh may be reduced.
10. The remaining appellants are represented by Mrs. Erum Sajjad Gull, Advocate, who has been appointed by this Court at State expense. She contended that the appellants/Abid Mehmood and Ishfaq Waseem alias Kala are drivers, and they are not connected with the offence, as no recovery of looted money has been effected from them and only the amount of fare has been recovered from them. The learned counsel further contended that there is no evidence available on record to prove that they knowingly facilitated the commission of offence or they were shareholders with the main culprit/ Muhammad Nawaz in the looted money. The learned counsel submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against both the accused/appellants beyond any shadow of doubt.
11. As regards the appellant/Shahbaz and Saleem Sultan, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that only arrival of the accused/appellants is stated by the P.Ws.
A but their involvement in the commission of the offence is not proved by any piece of evidence.
The learned counsel contended that the recoveries of 21 lac from the house of the accused/appellant Shehbaz and 150,000 from the box of Saleem Sultan, lying in a barrack are fake and in fact, the amount recovered from the main culprit/ Muhammad Nawaz, has been distributed amongst other accused to strengthen the prosecution case.
12. Conversely, the learned D.P.-G. opposed the above said appeals by arguing that the recovery of looted amount from the appellants had proved their involvement in the commission of the offence.
He further argued that all the appellants had joined hands and they facilitated each other in the commission of the offence. As regards Abid Mehmood and Ashfaq Waseem alias Kala, drivers of the cars, he argued that they had actively participated in the occurrence as they had been facilitating the transportation of the looted money from one place to another, on the asking of the main culprit/Muhammad Nawaz. He thus, argued that they were rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court. He further argued that the accused/appellants had not only looted a huge public money but also put the lives of police officials/ guards at stake by administering them intoxicating food and their offence fell within the ambit of section 7(h) of ATA, 1997.
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
14. From the entire prosecution evidence it is evident that the accused/ appellant/Muhammad Nawaz is the. Main culprit. He was proved to be the master mind of the occurrence. The major portion of the looted amount has been recovered from this appellant. All the P.Ws., who were served intoxicating food categorically deposed against him. The P.W./ Kamran Rafi, who was locked in the strong room, also named the appellant/Muhammad Nawaz as the one, who had put 'chadar' upon him. As the guilt of the accused/Muhammad Nawaz has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt, the learned counsel has not advanced any argument suggesting his innocence in the incident. The learned counsel has only argued with regard to the quantum of sentence and converting the sentences from consecutive to concurrent. The appellant by serving intoxicating food to the police contingents deployed at DPM office and thereby caused a serious threat to their lives. He has also committed the theft of a huge amount, which is public money. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case, we hold that the appellant/Muhammad Nawaz has rightly been awarded maximum sentence provided for the offences and he does not deserve any leniency to be shown by this Court qua the magnitude of the punishment. However, we find force in the argument of the learned counsel for 'the appellant/Muhammad Nawaz that the accused could not be awarded sentence beyond 14 years as it is in violation of proviso (a) to subsection (2) of section 35 of the Cr.P.C. In the case of Javed Shaikh v.. The State (supra), a four-member Behch of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held as under:-- "A perusal of proviso (a) to subsection (2) of section 35, Cr.P.C., indicates that it prohibits the giving of consecutive sentence in one trial beyond the period of fourteen years, the maximum sentence, short of the death sentence, which could be imposed on an offender before the promulgation of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. The said provision (section 35, Cr.P.C.) appears to be in consonance with the scheme and intendment of the Pakistan Penal Code that an offender should only suffer the maximumsentence of imprisonment for any heinous crime (as it stood until 1972) which should not exceed fourteen years. Therefore, the imposition of the sentence of life imprisonment (which means 25 years' R.I.), plus seven years' R.I. under section 307, P.P.C. would be inconsistent with the intendment of the provisions of proviso (a) to subsection (2) of section 35, Cr.P.C. inasmuch as the maximum punishment prescribed for heinous offences shall be exceeded. The difficulty in this case can be overcome if the sentences awarded to the appellant in respect of the two convictions under section 307, P.P.C. and under ' section 307, P.P.C. in one and the same trial are directed to run concurrently instead of running consecutively."
The view taken in the aforesaid judgment was then followed in the cases of Juma Khan and another v. The State (1986 SCM R 1573), Muhammad Ittefaq v. The State (1986 SCM R 1627) Khan Zaman and another v. The State (1987 SCM R 1382) and Faridullah Shah and another v. The State (1990 PCr.LJ 1945). However, in the year 1991, a five-Member Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Bashir and 3 others v. The State (PLD 1991 SC 1145) changed its earlier view and held as under:-- ...proviso (a) to subsection (2) of section 35, Criminal Procedure Code does not apply to cases of sentence awarded by the Sessions Court in original trial. ...the sentence of life imprisonment, unless ordered to run concurrently under subsection (1) of section 35, Cr.P.C. will run consecutively in view of its quantification in terms of years under section 57 of the Pakistan Penal Code."
However, in a recent judgment pronounced by a six-Member Bench of the Hon'ble Chief Supreme Court, headed by the Hon'ble Justice of Pakistan, in the case of Shah Hussain v. The State (PLD 2009 SC 460), the principle of law laid down in Javed Shaikh's case (1985 SCM R 153) has been reaffirmed and it has been held that proviso (a) to section 35, Cr.P.C. prohibits the giving of consecutive sentences in one trial beyond the period of 14 years.
15. In the instant case, the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant/ Muhammad Nawaz, under section 337-7, P.P.C. is 10 years' R.I. along with payment of 20,000 as 'Daman', and under section 7(h) ATA, 1997 is 10 years' R.I. and a fine of 10,000, along with other sentences as narrated in para 2 above. Thus the aggregate sentence awarded to Muhammad Nawaz/appellant comes to 34 years' R.I., which is in violation of section 35, Cr.P.C. Since it has been held in Javed Shaikh's case that provision of section 35, Cr.P.C. appears to be in consonance with the scheme and intendment of the Pakistan Penal Code that an offender should only suffer the maximum sentence of imprisonment for any heinous crime (as it stood until 1972), which should ,not exceed fourteen years, which has recently been reaffirmed in Shah Hussain's case. Therefore, the consecutive sentence of 34 years' R.I. would be inconsistent with the scheme and intendment of sub-section (2) of section 35, Cr.P.C. inasmuch as the maximum punishment prescribed for heinous offences shall exceed the period of 14 years. The legal infirmity arisen in this case could be rectified if the sentences awarded to the appellant/Muhammad Nawaz on 6 counts, under various offences in one and the same trial are ordered to run concurrently instead of consecutively.
16. We have noticed that the learned trial Court has also committed another illegality by not providing any sentence in case of default in payment of fine imposed upon the appellant while convicting him under sections 380 and 457 P.P.C. and section 7(h) of the ATA, 1997. We thus, hold that the appellant/Muhammad Nawaz, in case of default in payment of fine under sections 380 and 457, P.P.C. and under section 7(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, will suffer further simple imprisonment for 6 months, on each count. The learned trial Court has also failed to provide any sentence in lieu of non-payment of compensation of 30 lac, under section, 544-A, Cr.P.C., which is in violation of mandatory provision of subsection (2) of section 544-A, Cr.P.C. It is, therefore, ordered that in default of payment of compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C., the appellant/ Muhammad Nawaz will suffer further simple imprisonment for 6 months.
17.We have also observed that the learned trial Court has not given the appellant/Muhammad Nawaz, the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C., which is against the mandatory requirement of law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in its latest judgment passed in Shah Hussain's case. Hence, the convict/ appellant/Muhammad Nawaz is also held entitled to the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
18. So far as the case of the appellants/Muhammad Shehbaz and Saleem Sultan is concerned, their presence at the time of the incident is proved by cogent and reliable evidence. Saleem Sultan, is a police constable and at the relevant time, he was posted at Loco Workshop, Mughalpura, whereas Muhammad Shehbaz, accused was a private person and belonged to the village of the co- accused/Muhammad Nawaz. Admittedly, both these appellants did not take meal served by the accused/ Muhammad Nawaz which established their connivance and knowledge of plan of the co-accused/Muhammad Nawaz. During the investigation recovery of a part of looted amount has been effected from both these appellants, and this fact rules out their false implication in the instant case. Though the P.W./Kamran Rafi did not see their faces at the time when he was overpowered on gun point by these two accused, but later, during the investigation they were connected with the commission of the offence. As there is no direct evidence to prove the offences charged against them, it would serve the interest of justice, if the sentences of these appellants are modified and reduced to that of already undergone by them.
19. The only role attributed to Abid Mehmood (appellant in Criminal Appeal No,1692 of 2006) and Ishfaq Waseem alias Kala (appellant in Criminal Appeal No,1803 of 2006) is that of facilitating the transportation of the looted money. However, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove their involvement in the commission of the offence. Only a meagre amount has been recovered from both these appellants, which instead of proving the prosecution case has rather advanced the defence version of the appellants. Both the appellants are drivers by profession and the element of mens rea in their act of transporting the accused/Muhammad Nawaz towards different places is not proved by any cogent and convincing evidence. In the circumstances, their involvement in any of the offences charged against them is highly doubtful, and their conviction by the learned trial Court is not justified.
20.As a result of the above findings, while dismissing Criminal Appeal No,1685 of 2006, we uphold the conviction and sentences awarded to the appellant No,1/ Muhammad Nawaz, by the learned trial Court, but direct that all the sentences shall run concurrently, and he will also be entitled to the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Similarly, the conviction of appellants Nos.2 and 3/Muhammad Shahbaz and Saleem Sultan, is maintained but, for the foregoing reasons, their sentence is reduced to the period they have already undergone. They are ordered to be released 'forthwith if not required in any other criminal case. Criminal Appeal No,1803 of 2006 and Criminal Appeal No,1692 of 2006, filed by Ishfaq Waseem alias Kala and Abid Mehmood, respectively, are accepted and as a result thereof, their conviction and sentence is set-aside. They will be released forthwith, if not required in any other criminal case.