MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, J.---The instant application, filed under section 517, Cr.P.C. carries the following prayer clause: "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the said motorcycle Unique, bearing registration No. QAX- 2626, Chassis No.DSC-910856, Engine No. DSE-597143 may kindly he released in favour of applicant in the interest of justice, equity and fair play."
2. So far as the basic facts are concerned, there is no material dispute and to the extent necessary, they are noticed herein below. Appellant Muhammad "Omar son of Faqeer Muhammad was booked in Crime No. 19 of 2015, dated September 23, 2015 under sections 337-H(2), 353 read with section 34, P.P.C. lodged with Levies Thana Kadh Koocha, District Mastung, on the report of one Jan Muhammad, levies constable. At the time of alleged encounter between the applicant and levies personnel, the motorcycle of applicant bearing registration No. QAX. 2626 was also taken into custody by the levies authorities.
3. The applicant along with co-accused namely Mohibullah were convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate Mastung, vide order dated July 29, 2016 and the following order in respect of case properties was passed: "The case property motorcycle Unique engine No. DSE-597143, Chassis No. DSC-910856, TT pistol No. Nil, magazine and two live rounds be confiscated in favour of the state, three empties of 7T pistol and seven empties of Kalashnikov be destroyed after lapse of appeal period."
4. The conviction and sentences of the applicant was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Mastung by means of order dated November 24, 2016. The applicant being aggrieved, preferred Criminal Revision No.126 of 2017, which was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated September 25, 2017 and acquitted the applicant and his companion namely Mohibullah, without passing a specific order in respect of the motorcycle in question, hence the instant application.
5. 1 have heard Mr. Attah Ullah, Langove, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Yahya Baloch, learned Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that after winning a clean acquittal from this Court, the motorcycle in question was required to be handed over to the applicant. He further submitted that neither the motorcycle in question is stolen one nor there is any claimant of the same, except the applicant, from whom possession it was taken into custody. On the contrary, learned DPG contended that the order by which the motorcycle in question was confiscated, was passed as far back as 29-7-2016 and the applicant ought to have approached the competent Court within reasonable period. He further submitted that since, no order in respect of the motorcycle in question was passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.126 of 2017, as such, the applicant is not entitled for custody of the same. He also contended that the applicant was acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt, which does not amount a clean acquittal. While concluding his arguments he further submitted that once the judgment is given, it becomes final for the Court which has delivered and there is no provision of law which empowers the said Court to alter or change the same by way of review, recall, reconsideration or re-hearing. In other words, he submits that this Court being functus officio cannot grant the relief claimed for.
6. In order to resolve the controversy, it would be appropriate to reproduce herein below the operating part of the acquittal judgment, passed by this court, which read as under: "In the light of above discussion, I accept this petition, set aside the impugned judgments dated 29.7.2016 and 24.11.2016, passed by the Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge Mastung, respectively, and acquit the petitioners Mohibullah son of Abdul Ghani and Muhammad Umar son of Faqir Muhammad of the charge by extending them benefit of doubt. They are on bail, their bail bond stands discharged."
7. It is crystal clear from plain reading of the above quoted para of the judgment that the applicant was acquitted of the charge while extending benefit of doubt. Admittedly, this Court while passing the acquittal judgment has not specifically passed an order with regard to the seized properties, but the acceptance of Revision Petition amounts that the same was allowed in toto and after setting aside the impugned judgments, the acquittal of the applicant was unconditional. In such circumstances, after winning acquittal, the applicant could not be deprived of logical consequences of his acquittal order. Admittedly, neither the motorcycle in question was used in the commission of the alleged offence nor the same is stolen one. It was taken into custody by the levies authorities from the possession of applicant Muhammad Umar. After setting aside the conviction and sentences, there is no reason to deprive him of the logical consequences of his acquittal. Obviously, the motorcycle in question was seized in consequence of the charges levelled against the applicant, and then his acquittal should necessarily result in B the release of those properties, which were taken into custody from his possession by the authorities at the time of his arrest. Acquittal of accused of the charge, entitles him to all reliefs including the release of his properties seized at the time of arrest.
8. Admittedly, this Court while passing the final judgment has not passed any order in the respect of the case properties. According to my humble opinion section 520, Cr.P.C. gives supervisory powers to the Courts of appeal or revision to correct the errors of Court below in respect of the orders passed rider section 517, Cr.P.C., independently of the fact whether or not an appeal or revision in the substantive case is pending. An appeal or revision as such is not contemplated by section 520, Cr.P.C. but the section does give a right to an aggrieved person to approach a Court of appeal or revision by way of an application for redressal of his grievances. Similarly, passing an order in respect of case property, after final judgment at a subsequent stage, does not amount altering, changing or reviewing the final order.
9. So far as the contention of the learned APG, regarding the maintainability of instant application as well as question of limitation is concerned, I am of the opinion that it is by now settled that where the case in which an order under section 517, Cr.P.C. was passed is itself pending before a Court of appeal or revision, that Court can modify, annul or alter such an order while exercising powers under section 520, Cr.P.C. But where no such case is pending (like one under consideration) an application lies to the Court, to which appeals or revisions ordinarily lies from the Court which passed the order under section 517, Cr.P.C. The power under sections 517 and 520, Cr.P.C. by an appellate or a revisional Court does not depend on the availability or pendency or an appeal or revision in the original case but it is an independent and substantive jurisdiction by which it is open to the Court of the above description not only to modify, cancel or alter the order but make such other orders for the proper disposal of the property as the facts of the case may require. It is by now settled that it' properties not proved to be the subject matter of an offence it should be restored to the person from whom it had been taken. While holding this view. I am fortified from the judgment reported as PLD 1975 Lahore 45 "(Jalal Khan v. State).
10. Similarly, the contention of the learned counsel regarding the question of limitation is also devoid of force for the reason that the proceedings under sections 517 and 520, Cr.P.C. are not appeals or revisions and the same are also not in the nature of appeals and revisions. These are proceedings of a special nature and no period of D limitation is prescribed by law for moving such applications.
11. The learned DPG also contended that since the applicant was acquitted while extending benefit of doubt but not honorably, as such, is not entitled for the relief prayed for. I am afraid that "Acquittal" constitutes exoneration from a criminal charge. Once a person charged with certain offences by a judicial order is acquitted, the verdict means a formal certification of the innocence of such person. It is well entrenched principle of criminal jurisprudence that for a judgment of conviction it is the duty of the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt, if it fails to do so, the accused will be entitled to acquittal and such acquittal will be honourable, even if it is the result of benefit of doubt. The expression 'benefit of doubt' is only suggestive of the fact that the prosecution has failed to exonerate itself of the duty of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt. While holding so. I am benefited from the case of "Muhammad Aslam v. Govt. of N.W.F.P"
(1998 SCM R 1993).
12. For the aforesaid discussion, the application is hereby allowed and the motorcycle bearing registration No.QAX-2626 should be handed over to the applicant.