' In the case before the learned Ad hoc Sessions Judge, Quetta, State v. Salah-ud-Din, Muhammad Dawood and Dost Muhammad, under section 394, P.P.C., by judgment, dated 7-8-1994, accused Salah-ud-Din and Muhammad Dawood were acquitted and accused Dost Muhammad was convicted. An order was passed in so far as the case of accused Muhammad Hanif, who was absconder, is concerned to be kept pending till his arrest. An Alto Suzuki Car bearing registration No,G-7015 Karachi which was used in the offence was ordered to be confiscated in favour of the Government. The entire part of the judgment of the learned Ad hoc Sessions Judge, Quetta, which deals with the confiscation of the car in question is as follows:-- "The Alto Car No,G-7015 Karachi which was used in the offence is confiscated in favour of the Government."
2. This revision petition has been filed by Haji Lal Jan who claims to be the owner of the car in question. I have heard Khan M. Nawaz Khan Barkzai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Yakub K. Eusufzai, learned Advocate-General, Balochistan, who is present pursuant to notice at the preliminary hearing stage. A case for admission of this revision petition is made out. This revision petition is admitted to regular hearing and, with the consent of the both the learned counsel, regular hearing is taken up.
3. The case of the petitioner is that neither he was an accused nor a witness in the case in which his car has been ordered to be confiscated in favour of the Government and that, before the said order was passed, neither a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor an opportunity of hearing was granted and that, if an opportunity had been afforded to the petitioner, he would have placed adequate material on record to establish that the car in question belonged to him and it was to be delivered to him instead of being confiscated in favour of the State. In view of the several decisions of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, including 1990 SCM R 486 and 1987 SCM R 1274, the learned Advocate-General does not oppose this revision petition to the extent that the matter may be remanded for fresh decision on the question of confiscation of the car in question.
4. I am also of the view that the car in question should not have been confiscated in favour of the State without prior notice/hearing to the petitioner. As a result, this revision petition is allowed to the extent that the part of the judgment, dated 7-8-1994 of the learned Ad hoc Sessions Judge, Quetta, directing the confiscation of car in question is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court for fresh decision as to the disposal of the car in question after giving notice to the petitioner and affording an opportunity to the petitioner to place such material/evidence before the trial Court as may be considered necessary by the petitioner in support of the claim that the car belongs to him and is not liable to be confiscated and he is entitled to possession of the car.
5. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,39-0 of 1994 for interim relief has become infructuous in view of the disposal of Criminal Revision Petition No,34-0 of 1994.