' SYED IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Petitioner Imtiaz Sharif has assailed the legality of order dated 26-11-2010 passed by the learned Special Judge (Central), Faisalabad whereby an application made by the petitioner for the release of his 4-Kanals agricultural land situated at Chak No,172-G.B.
Tehsil Samundari District Faisalabad attached under section 88, Cr.P.C., was dismissed.
2. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the petitioner was an accused of case F.I.R. No,37 of 2006 dated 26-4-2006 under sections 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 registered at Police Station FIA Faisalabad with the allegation that he had received Rs,13,00,000 from the complainant for sending him England for employment but did not fulfil his promise. He was declared proclaimed offender in the said case vide order dated 27-1-2007 and his property mentioned above was attached vide order, dated 8-12-2006. Later on the petitioner was arrested on 26-1-2007 and he faced the trial wherein he was convicted vide judgment dated 2-8-2008. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of his conviction, which was disposed of, vide order dated 5-5-2010 while sentencing him to the imprisonment for the period he had already undergone. After his release from jail, the petitioner submitted application on 12-11-2010 for the release of his property, which was attached under section 88, Cr.P.C. Learned trial Court, after hearing the petitioner, dismissed the application of the petitioner vide order dated 26-11-2010.
Hence, the present revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that after the attachment of his property, the petitioner had appeared before the Court, faced the trial and ultimately he was convicted and sentenced .To the rigorous imprisonment for four years, he preferred an appeal against his conviction, which has also been disposed of; that the petitioner had voluntarily appeared before the Court and faced the trial, therefore, the property of the petitioner which was attached under section 88, Cr.P.C. Is liable to be restored but the learned trial Court has refused to restore the same vide impugned order dated 26-11-2010 holding the petition being time barred arbitrarily; that the petitioner was apprehended and appeared before the Court before the expiry of period of two years, therefore, his property was liable to be de-attached. Placed reliance on case titled "Mira Jan v. The State and 2 others (2007 YLR 389 Peshawar)" and Said Johar v. State 2007 YLR 3270.
4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has contended that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to move the learned trial Court within two years but he has failed to do so, therefore, the impugned order is in accordance with law. However, learned Standing Counsel has admitted that the petitioner had appeared before the same Court and had joined the proceedings, faced the trial immediately after the attachment of his property and before the expiry of period of two years.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and also perused the record.
6. The land measuring 4-Kanals situated at Chak No,172-G.B. Tehsil Samundari District Faisalabad belonging to the petitioner was attached by the order of Special Judge (Central) Faisalabad on 8- 12-2006 as the petitioner had absconded himself in the aforementioned case. Thereafter, the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 20-1-2007 and the property in question is now under the control of Tehsildar Samundari.
7. Under section 89, Cr.P.C., if any person whose property has been attached or has been placed at the disposal of the provincial government under subsection (7) of section 88, Cr.P.C. Within two years from the date of the attachment, appears voluntarily or is apprehended and brought before the Court of whose order the property was attached and appears to the satisfaction of such Court that he did not abscond or conceal himself for the purpose of avoiding execution of warrant against him, then the Court can withdraw the attachment subject to the payment of cost incurred in consequence of the attachment and direct the delivery of the property to him.
8. The petitioner was declared proclaimed offender on 20-1-2007. He was arrested on 26-1-2007 after a week. Thereafter, he faced trial and was convicted and ultimately undergone the sentence awarded to him. The petitioner was tried by the same Court, which passed an order for the attachment of his property. What to speak of two years, the petitioner appeared before the Court after one week of declaring him as absconder. The object of the attachment of property under section 88, Cr.P.C. Is to procure the attendance of accused person and this object has already been achieved. The property of the petitioner was simply attached and no further proceedings have been conducted so far. When the goal of procuring the attendance of the petitioner has already been achieved and the petitioner had appeared before the trial Court within 7-days of declaring him as proclaimed offender, then there is no legal justification for keeping the property of the petitioner under attachment for an indefinite period. Learned trial Court has erred while declining the request of the petitioner for the release of his attached property. The impugned order is not in accordance with law and the same is liable to be set aside.
9. In this view of the matter the revision petition in hand is allowed, impugned order dated 26-11- 2010 is set aside and the property of the petitioner is de-attached.