ALI BAIG, J.-----## TS## This criminal revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 05-03-2020 passed by the learned Judge Anti-T errorism Court Gilgit, whereby the learned Judge Anti-T errorism Court Gilgit has dismissed the application of the present petitioner filed under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. for A superdari of Laptop, Passport, Prize bonds worth Rs.477500/- and Cheque Books etc.
2. Succinctly facts giving rise to the filing of the instant petition are that the present petitioner and his co-accused were booked for offences under sections 120-B, 123-A, 124-A/153-B, P.P.C. and sections 6/7 ATA 1997, B. vide FIR No. 40/2016 registered at Police Station City Gahkuch. During investigation, the prosecution had taken into custody Laptop, Passport, Prize Bonds and Cheque Books of the petitioner . Accordingly , the petitioner/ accused filed an application under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. in the trial court for superdari of the aforesaid articles, which was dismissed by the learned trial court vide the impugned order dated 05-03-2020.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order of the learned trial court, the petitioner/accused has filed the instant criminal revision petition in this court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused contended that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case; as such, the impugned order passed by the learned trail court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the petitioner is bona fide owner and last possessor of the aforesaid articles, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for getting the said articles on superdari. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the aforesaid articles have been exhibited in the trial court and the said articles/items are no more required to the trial court and there is no rival claimant of the said items.
5. On the other hand the learned Dy. Advocate General opposed this petition by contending since the petitioner is involved in Anti-State activities, therefore, he is not entitled for getting the said articles on superdari.
6. I have given my dispassionate thought to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
7. Admittedly , the petitioner is bona fide owner and last possessor of the aforementioned articles/items and no other rival claimant has come forward to claim ownership of said items. Keeping in view, the settled principle of law of superdari when no other claimant has come forward to claim ownership of the same and the petitioner being bona fide owner of the said items is entitled for custody of the aforesaid articles/items in question.
8. Moreover , the aforesaid items have been exhibited before the learned trial court as evident from the statement of PW-16 namely Riaz F.C. and the said items are no more required to the trial court. Retention of aforesaid items in police custody for indefinite period would not serve any useful purpose.
9. In the light of foregoing reasons, I accept this criminal revision petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 05-03-2020 passed by the learned trial court. Consequently , the above-mentioned items shall be given to the petitioner on superdari subject to his furnishing undertaking/af fidavit to the extent that if the trial court forfeit the said items at the end of trial, he shall return amount of prize bonds and laptop to the trial court. File.