' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---This is a revision petition seeking direction for the restoration of possession of motor-cycle confiscated by the learned Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Sargodha at the conclusion of the trial under section 216, P.P.C. against Muhammad Azam etc. vide judgment dated 26-7-1992.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that a case under section 216, P.P.C. was registered against Muhammad Azam, Mubashir and Tabraiz on the allegation that on 20-1-1992 at 1-15 p.m. they got Mahr Khan, a convict, escaped from the police custody. Muhammad Azam handed over him a Klashnikov whereas Mubashir Nawaz and Tabraiz made him to sit on the motor-cycle driven by Mubashir Nawaz. The accused persons were tried for the offence under section 216, P.P.C. and were acquitted. The motor-cycle which is alleged to have been used in the commission of offence having not been claimed by any person during the trial and at its conclusion was confiscated in favour of the State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the photocopy of registration book of the motor-cycle No,MIA 2828 Annexure 'A' on the record contends that it is owned by the petitioner which was taken into custody during general checking on 22-1-1992 and later on was shown to have been used in the commission of offence, that during the investigation of the case the petitioner submitted an application for Supardari of motor-cycle in question which was rejected by Ilaqa Magistrate, Mianwali on 12-3-1992. The petitioner now submits that he being lawful owner of the motor-cycle is entitled to its possession which may be directed to be given to him. He also submits that the involvement of the motor-cycle in the commission of offence is not established and the same was taken into possession only on suspicion.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the arguments. Learned counsel has not been able to satisfy us with regard to the maintainability of the revision petition.
5. The motor-cycle was ordered to be confiscated by the learned trial Court at the conclusion of the trial. After dismissal of the application of the petitioner during investigation of the case he did not claim the ownership and possession of the motor-cycle pending trial. The question for determination of the ownership of the petitioner being a question of fact requires a detailed probe and inquiry which exercise cannot be gone into by this Court. The petitioner has not bothered to establish his title over the motor-cycle before the trial Court and now is seeking direction for its recovery without establishing his title and right to the possession of the same. Consequently there being no merits in this revision we dismiss the same.