Muhammad Akram petitioner was tried under section 380/457/411, P.P.C. On the charge of theft of different articles from the house of Rab Nawaz petitioner/complainant. He was convicted under section 411, P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for the period he remained in jail as an under- trial prisoner i.e. 1-1/2 years. The trial Court directed that the stolen property be returned to the complainant/owner. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed appeal which was entrusted to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, who vide his judgment, dated 4-4-1983 set aside the conviction and sentence of the respondents and directed that the stolen property may be returned to him, hence this revision by the complainant.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although respondent No.1 was acquitted of the charge of theft yet there was no justification to return the stolen property to him. Learned counsel for the State has opposed him.
3. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that respondent/accused had claimed the alleged stolen property, as his own property. He was acquitted of the charge. Therefore, it was quite legal and in the fitness of things that the property recovered from him by the police should have been returned to him. The order of the appellate Court is neither perverse nor illegal.
Pursuant to the above discussion, I do not see any justification to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the Appellate Court. So, the revision is dismissed.