' MUHAMMAD TARIQ ABBASI, J.---Through the instant revision validity of the orders dated 17-3-2010 and 19-8-2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, at D.G. Khan have been questioned.
2. Facts 'giving rise to the instant revision petition are that a case through F.I.R. No, 644 dated 10-9- 2007 under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station Saddar D.G. Khan, against Abdul Rasheed (husband of the present petitioner) and two others namely Muhammad Younis and Takiya. Abdul Rasheed did not join into the proceedings and absconded himself, hence after adopting all the legal formalities was declared as P.O. Consequently through order dated 21-4- 2008, the learned Additional Sessions Judge D.G. Khan while separating the case of Younis and Takiya, from the case of Abdul Rasheed (proclaimed offender) had ordered for attachment of his property and accordingly directed the DOR to do the needful. Thereafter Muhammad Bilal (respondent No, 2/complainant in the above mentioned case) through an application requested the concerned court to sale out the property of Abdul Rasheed (P.O.). In the said application learned concerned court through its order dated 17-3-2010 directed the DOR to sell out the property of the above mentioned P.O. Mst. Jannat (present petitioner), challenged the above mentioned order with the contention that property which was going to be sold was given to her as dower hence was not saleable but the learned concerned court through order dated 19-8-2010 had turned down the above mentioned objection petition made by the present petitioner.
3. Feeling aggrieved the instant revision has been filed with the contention and on the grounds that when the property allegedly belonging to the above mentioned proclaimed offender does not relate to him rather has been acquired by the present petitioner as dower and in this regard her suit has also been decreed from the learned family court then there is no fun of sale of the property and not giving any consideration to the above mentioned petition filed by the .Petitioner.
4. The revision petition has been opposed by the learned D.P.G. As well as the learned counsel for the respondent No, 2.
5. The contentions raised from all the sides have been heard and record has been considered.
6. Under section 88(6A) Cr.P.C. Of 1898, a person having an interest in the property belonging to a proclaimed offender which has been attached can prefer objections in the concerned court. For guidance the said section is reproduced herein below:-- "If any claim is preferred to, or objection made to the attachment of, any property attached under this Section within six months from the date of such attachment, by any person other than the proclaimed person, on the ground that the claimant or objector has an interest in such property, and that such interest is not liable to attachment under this Section, the claim or objection shall be inquired into, and may be allowed or disallowed in whole or in part: ' Provided that any claim preferred or objection made within the period allowed by this subsection may, in the event of death of the claimant or objector, be continued by his legal representative."
7. Under section 88(6D) of the Cr.P.C., if the claim or objection preferred by any such person is disallowed, then within one year he may institute a suit to establish the claimed right and the order passed in objections shall be subject to the result of the suit and shall be conclusive. The said section speaks as under:- "Any person whose claim or objection has been disallowed in whole or in part by an order under subsection (6A) may, within a period of one year from the date of such order, institute a suit to establish the right which he claims in respect of property in dispute; but subject to the result of such suit, if any, the order shall be conclusive.
8. In the matter in hand, the present petitioner had filed the objection petition to the effect that the property in question had been given to her by her husband (Abdul Rasheed P.O.), hence, she had interest in the property and as such it should not to be sold. She had interest in the property and as such it should not to be sold. She had also instituted the suit before the family court, which had been decreed on 8-9-2011. Hence, the above mentioned objection/contention was not ignorable and needed weight and consideration.
9. Resultantly, the revision petitions accepted. The impugned orders are set aside and the matter is referred back to the learned concerned court with the direction that in the light of the above mentioned attending circumstances, the objection petition filed by the present petitioner be decided afresh, within a span of three months from receipt of this order.