' This petition under section 561-A read with section 523, Cr.P.C. Calls in question the order dated, the 2nd of June, 1992 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh affirming the order of the Magistrate 1st Class passed on the 29th of April, 1992, whereby two cows and one calf were ordered to be restored to Muhammad Nawaz respondent.
2. Muhammad Nawaz respondent brought to the police station two cows and one Jhoti (young buffalo) saying that they had been secured from the petitioner as compensation to his two she- camels (Dachi), stolen long time back . The police, therefore, registered a case under section 411, P.P.C. Against the petitioner on the same day. Police, however, took into possession the said cattle as case property and subsequently gave to him on Superdari under the impugned order of the Magistrate. The police, however, ultimately found the allegations of stealing two she-camels of the respondent as false. The police, therefore, moved the Ilaqa Magistrate for restoration of cattle back to the real owner i,e. The petitioner. Learned Magistrate, however, did not disturb his order of Superdari. The petitioner challenged this order in revision and the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order, however, dismissed the same holding that the cattle had not been secured by police from the possession of the petitioner and, therefore, had to be kept by the respondent from whose possession they had been taken.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the cattle ought to have been given to the petitioner as according to the respondent's own showing the same had been given to him by the petitioner as compensation for cattle of the respondent allegedly stolen by the petitioner.
4. Admittedly the cattle in question were not subject-matter of the offence in a case registered against him vide F.I.R. No,194/1991. Since the cattle had been in possession of the respondent, before Superdari, therefore, the same had to remain with him. It was ruled by this Court in Jalal Khan v.
State and Khushi Muhammad PLD 1975 Lah. 45 and Sardara v. Boota PLD 1950 Lah. 97 that property not proved to be subject-matter of an offence should be restored without detailed enquiry as to ownership of property to persons from whom it had been taken. The parties have clashing claims over the cattle; the petitioner says that after allegation of theft was found false during investigation, he has to get the cattle. The respondent asserts that the cattle had been given to him in pursuance of a settlement between the parties and the same had been taken from his possession during investigation, therefore, they were not only given to him rightfully on Superdari but he is entitled to have the same as owner after the case is over. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had rightly affirmed the order of the Magistrate of giving the cattle to the respondent on Superdari and leaving the dispute of title over the cattle to be settled in a Civil Court. The petitioner has to establish his title over the cattle in question in Civil Court. The impugned orders, therefore, do not call for interference. In circumstances of the case the petition is dismissed.