The facts leading to the filing of this revision are that the petitioners were convicted by Magistrate First Class, Sialkot for an offence under section 448/34. P.P.C. On 24-7-1974. Their appeal failed but the sentences were reduced. In revision this Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by them and dismissed the petition on 26-5-1981. Thereafter the complainant filed an application before the trial Court on 4-5-1982 under section 522, Cr.P.C. With the prayer that the possession of the house be handed over to him. The application was withdrawn and the same was filed before the Sessions Judge, Sialkot, who vide his judgment dated 25-9-1982, directed the petitioners in the present revision to deliver the possession to the complainant.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that under section 522, Cr.P.C. Limitation prescribed by law is one year but in the instant case the petition for delivery of possession was made after more than six years. Argues that the complainant may approach the Civil Court, which would have jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The petition has been resisted by learned counsel for the respondents. According to him subsection (2) of section 522, Cr.P.C. Grants absolute powers to the appellate Court or revisional Court for passing orders.
2. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the file. Section 522, Cr.P.C. Read as follows: "Section 522.---(1) Whenever a person is convicted of an offence attended by criminal force or show of force or by criminal intimidation and it appears to the Court that by such force or show of force or criminal intimidation any person has been dispossessed of any immovable property the Court may, if it thinks fit when convicting such person or at any time within one month from the date of the conviction order the person dispossessed to be restored to the possession of the same.
According to subsection(2) of section 522, Cr.P.C., no limitation is prescribed for the Appellate Court or the Court of revision to pass an order in the nature which has been impugned. A similar proposition was dealt with in a case reported as Ataul Haq v. Qamar-uz-Zaman and 2 others PLD 1972 Lah. 505. Relying upon the said judgment, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed.