' On 17-8-1992, at about 3-15 p.m. There was armed robbery inside the shop known as Dawn Paper Mart, Campbell Street, Karachi, committed by two persons. During this period Abuzar Bukhari, Sales Officer, of the applicant parked his car in front of the above shop and entered the said shop when he too was robbed of a cash of Rs,1,50,000 and the Suzuki Car No,U-1573, belonging to applicant by the said culprits. On the same day Tanvir Ahmad Iqbal, the Proprietor of Dawn Paper Mart lodged FIR. At Aram Bagh Police Station, which was registered under section 382/34, P.P.C. At 5-30 p.m.
During the course of investigation the Suzuki Car and a cash of Rs,83,000 belonging to applicant were recovered from the possession of the accused. After usual investigation the accused were sent up to stand trial in a case under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The applicant applied for the return of the Suzuki Car and the cash recovered from the possession of the accused before Vth Additional Sessions Judge (South), Karachi, but the prayer was refused vide order, dated 31-10-1992, mainly, for the following reasons:- - "Since the registered owner has not applied for return of the vehicle in question. Moreover, I have already dismissed the application. Learned counsel for the applicant failed to satisfy about the restoration of the application which is already dismissed. Learned counsel for the applicant has cited case-law reported as PLD 1991 Kar. Page 200 in which it has been held by my Lord Mr. Justice Qaiser Ahmed Hamidi that the Courts are bound to release the vehicle to their respective owners for proper custody. This case-law is not favourable to the applicant as I am also of this humble opinion that the vehicle is to be handed over to the owner but in this case owner has not applied for return of the vehicle. Learned counsel for the applicant also cited case-law reported as PLD 1979 Kar.
430. This case-law is also not favourable to the applicant as the ownership of the property in hand is in no way disputed. Therefore, this case-law is also not helpful to the applicant. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the said application hence the same is dismissed."
2. It is in these circumstances that the applicant has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present criminal revision application under section 435/439 read with section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
3. I have heard Mr. Raja Sikandar Khan Yasir, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Aziz-ur-Rehman Shaikh, learned counsel for State. The latter has not supported the impugned order.
4. I need not enter into the merits of the case as the present revision application filed before this Court is not competent in view of the bar contained under Article 203-G of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The case of Khursheed v. The State reported in 1990 P Cr. L J 409, is a direct authority on this subject, wherein it was made clear that all decisions made by any Criminal Court under any law, relating to enforcement of Hudood in respect of some matter in controversy affecting the rights of parties, are revisable by Federal Shari'at Court, under Article 203- DD of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and not by the High Court under section 435/439, Cr.P.C. At p.413 of this judgment it was observed that:- "The words 'under any law relating to the enforcement of Hudood' used in clause (1) of Article 203- DD of the Constitution, therefore, refer to all the above four laws. Again the words 'case decided' used in clause (1) are wide enough to include ' interlocutory orders also. On the face of the above legal position both the impugned orders fall within the scope of words 'case decided' and are amenable to revision under Article 203-DD of the Constitution before the Federal Shariat Court.
' The special revisional jurisdiction is conferred upon the Federal Shariat Court after carving it out from the general jurisdiction of this Court through a Constitutional amendment (P.O. 5 of 1982).
Article 203-G expressly bars the jurisdiction of this Court in respect of all decisions falling within the purview of the words 'case decided' used in clause (1) of Article 203-DD of the Constitution. The orders which are passed in exercise of incidental or ancillary powers to the main jurisdiction conferred by Hudood laws are also subject to revision to Federal Shariat Court under Article 203-DD of the Constitution."
' It will not be out of place to mention here that an appeal from an order under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, which imposes a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding two years lies to the Federal Shariat Court. Section 12 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, again provides in clear terms that if the stolen property is found in the original or in an identifiable form, or in a form into or for which it may have been converted or exchanged, it shall be or caused to be returned to the victim, whether it is in the possession of, or has been recovered from, the offender or any other person.
6. That from whatever point of view the matter may be looked at, the present revision application is not competent before this Court. The memo. Of revision application may be returned to applicant for presenting it before the Court having jurisdiction. The revision application stands disposed of in the above terms.