Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are that petitioner is the complainant of case F.I.R. No, 328/2000 dated 26.07.2000 under Section 411, PPC, Police Station City, Depalpur District Qkara, regarding the theft of his three cows and two calves valuing Rs, 48,000/-, which were recovered by theolice from Respondent No, 4 Muhammad Ashraf and were taken into possession under Section 550, Cr.P.C. vide Rapat No, 11 dated 23.06.2000. Thereafter, the said cattle were handed over to the petitioner on supurdari by the order of the learned Magistrate dated 28.07.2000. On 02.04.2005, Respondent No, 4 Muhammad Ashraf moved an application before the learned Area Magistrate for cancellation of supurdari of the cattle in favour of the petitioner on the ground that a false and fictitious case was registered against him, which was re-investigated by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Okara on the order of the Lahore High Court and ultimately finding the case baseless a cancellation report has been prepared by the police, therefore, by canceling the case as well as supurdari in favour of the petitioner, the cattle may be handed over to him. The application was accepted by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 06.11,2009 and by recalling the order dated 28.07.2000 the S.H.O concerned was directed to take custody of the case property from the supurdar (present petitioner) and to proceed further in accordance with law. The review petition of the petitioner for recalling the order dated 06.11.2009 was also dismissed by the learned Magistrate on 24,11.2009. Against the orders dated 06.11.2009 and 24.11.2009 passed by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner filed a revision petition, which too has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions through the impugned judgment dated 09,02,2010,
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that before the learned trial Court, both the parties have agreed that in fact the then SILO of the Police Station City, Depalpur namely Ghulam Jillani had misappropriated the cattle, no cattle were handed over to the petitioner on supurdari and he was falsely shown as supurdar by the police, and all the proceedings of supurdari were fake.
Further contends that while disposing of Writ Petition No, 16599/2000 on 16.12.2002 this Court has directed the Respondent No, 4 to approach the revisional Court regarding his grievance about the order of supurdari regarding the disputed cattle but Respondent No, 4 did not approach the revisional Court and opted to file an application for cancellation of supurdari before the learned trial Court after the lapse of four years time and the learned trial Court has passed the order without taking into consideration the real facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the point, which order has erroneously been upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
3, On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No, 4 contends that there is a concurrent finding of the Courts below regarding the supurdari against the petitioner; that only to prolong the proceedings and to illegally retain the cattle after passing of the order of cancellation of supurdari, the petitioner has filed this writ petition; that both the impugned orders passed by the learned Area Magistrate and by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are quite in accordance with law.
4. Learned Assistant Advocate General contends that claim of the petitioner in this writ petition is totally bogus and in fact according to the available record, Respondent No, 4 is entitled for supurdari of the cattle.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. I have noticed that Writ Petition No, 16.599 of 2000 was filed by Respondent No, 4 with the prayer that false criminal cases have been registered against him, therefore, the police be restrained from arresting him in any criminal case and from causing harassment to him and his family members.
During the hearing of that writ petition, vide order dated 01.07.2002 this Court has necessitated the re-investigation of all the cases by the S.S.P, Okara registered against Respondent No, 4 during the period from June 2000 to December 2000. I have also noted that on the order of this Court passed in Writ Petition No, 16599 of 2000, all the criminal cases registered against Respondent No, 4 were re-investigated by the S.S.P, Okara, who finding the cases false and baseless had recommended for their cancellation and cancellation reports in this regard were submitted by the S.H.O, Police Station, City Depalpur before the learned Area Magistrate and the, learned Area Magistrate has agreed with the same. Writ Petition No, 16599 of 2002 was disposed of by this Court on 16.12.2002 with a view that the controversy agitated through the same could not be resolved in those proceedings as it required investigation/inquiry. Therefore, in my view the observation of this Court in the order dated 16.12.2002 that Respondent No, 4 should challenge the orders of supurdari before the revisional Court in proper proceedings does not come in the way of Respondent No, 4 while applying for cancellation of supurdari of his cattle in favour of the petitioner and the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is misconceived.
7. As Respondent No, 4 was found innocent during the re-investigation of the criminal cases registered against him and the cancellation reports prepared by the police in that cases have been agreed by the learned Area Magistrate, therefore, the learned Magistrate was right in canceling the supurdari of the case property in favour of the petitioner and directing the S.H.O concerned to take the custody of the case property from the petitioner and to proceed further in accordance with law, which order has validly been upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while observing as under:-- "It is settled proposition of law that Supardari is always given to Supardar with the condition that the property handed over on Supardari, shall be produced/returned before the Court, if and when ordered by the Court. The Court granting the Supardari has ample legal power to order the Supardar to produce the case property. I have gone through the order dated 06.11.2009 and found that the learned Magistrate has discussed the reasons for cancellation of the Supardari. The cases got lodged against the Respondent No, 2 Muhammad Ashraf i,e, mentioned above stood cancelled and tampering was also found in the record of the Police i,e, Register No,
19. There is no irregularity committed by learned Magistrate, which can be termed as illegality."
I am of the considered view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below are quite in accordance with law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same, calling for interference by this Court. Resultantly, this writ petition being devoid of any force is dismissed.