These two cross-revisions, i.e. Cr. Rev. 159/83 and Cr. Rev. 163/83, arise out of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore on 28th February, 1983 in the proceedings under section 520, Cr. P. C. Before him arising out of an order passed by the Magistrate in a theft case, whereby he acquitted the accused on 9th May, 1981 and directed that the case property, i.e. Ornaments P. 1 to P.
9 be returned to Mst. Mumtaz Begum informant/complainant in the theft case. This judg--ment will dispose of both the revisions.
2. Mst. Mumtaz Begum alleged theft of her ornaments Exhs. P. 1 to P. 9 and other household articles as well, against Mst. Shahida Nasreen and Mst. Safia Begum, but at the trial, she confined her claim to ornaments only. The two accused did not deny possession of ornaments. They claimed that Mst.
Mumtaz Begum had pawned ornaments as against a loan of Rs. 10,000, which she had not been able to pay and made a false report about the theft of the ornaments. It is noteworthy that the report of ornaments was delayed by two years. While acquitting the accused, trial Court observed that the complainant had been prosecuted for the offence of cheating and as such, did not consider her reliable. On the other hand it held that the defence version was plausible and convincing and concluded that it was of the confirmed opinion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge, yet did not direct that the property be handed over to the accused from whom it had been recovered and whose version it considered convincing and plausible. Consequently, the accused went up before the Sessions Judge under section 520, Cr. P. C. And by the impugned order, the Additional Sessions Judge directed that the ornaments be deposited in the malkhana and directed the parties to establish their claim before a civil Court.
3; Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner contended that being the owner of the property, proper order would be to direct that its possession be delivered to her. .On the other hand, accused/ petitioners contended that since their version was found convincing and they had also admitted the possession of the property, which was a trust with them till the complainant paid off the debt, it should, therefore, be restored to them.
4. I have considered the matter. Not only that the complainant did not file any appeal against the acquittal or revision, even otherwise under the circumstances of this case as enumerated above, in propriety the case property should have been delivered to the persons from whom it was taken into possession, i.e. The acquitted accused whose version was also found convincing. After this finding, it was not fair to direct them to go to the civil Court for establishing their claim. On the contrary, the complainant should establish her claim before a civil Court if she has any. To me, it appears that the complainant found a short-cut and in order to pressurize, prosecuted the accused. Otherwise, if there had been a theft of her property, there was no reason for her to have slept over the matter for two long years. I, therefore, accept the revision petition filed by Mst.
Shahida Nasreen and Mst. Safia Begum the acquitted accused in the theft case. The revision petition filed by Mst. Mumtaz Begum is dismissed. The impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge is set aside and the trial Court is directed to deliver the ornaments to Mst. Shahida Nasreen and Mst. Safia Begum.