' FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---This criminal appeal is directed, through leave of the Court, against the judgment of Lahore High Court, dated 11-3-1991 passed in Criminal Appeals Nos.1130/88 and 810 of 1988.
2. In case F.I.R. No,43 registered at Police Station City, Kasur on 8-2-1970 under section 302/396/323/148/149, P.P.C., the accused named therein were tried by Special Judge. The learned Special Judge vide his judgment, dated 25th August, 1988 acquitted Ghulam Muhammad, Azam Hussain and Muhammad Hanif while Muhammad Habib, Muhammad Jameel and Khalid Mehmood were found guilty and on conviction sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine under section 302/396/.148/323/149, P.P.C.
3. Aggrieved by the judgment the convicts filed Criminal Appeal No,1130 of 1988 and Criminal Appeal No,810 of 1988 one of the accused; namely, Khalid Mehmood who had been absconding was tried in absentia and later on arrested who filed Jail Appeal No,11-J of 1991, time-barred, in the circumstances of the case was heard with the connected appeal. The learned High Court on re- appraisal of the entire evidence acquitted the accused on accepting of their appeal. However, with regard to the case property the learned High Court has ordered as under:-- "Before parting with this judgment, it may be mentioned here that during the hearing of this appeal it was noticed that the culprits took away a huge quantity of ornaments but still sufficient quantity thereof was left out in the house. The deceased had stored this large number of gold and silver ornaments in his house as he was doing the business of money-lending. His customers used to raise loan in lieu of pledging their gold and silver ornaments. It appears that he was maintaining a regular account of each and every transaction and probably this was the reason that ornaments can be returned to them. From the empty envelopes contained in Trunk No,3, it can be presumed that their contents were taken away by the dacoits.
' It is a valuable property worth lacs of rupees and the same is to be returned to their rightful owners. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Kasur and the learned District Magistrate, Kasur shall jointly supervise either personally or through their trustworthy nominees, not below the rank of a Civil Judge/Magistrate, who should be men of integrity, the restoration of ornaments to their rightful owners/claimants in lieu of their acknowledgments after duly ascertaining their identity. If the owners/pledgees, who are reported dead, the ornaments should be given to their lawful heirs. If they feel difficulty in determining their heirs then the parties should be referred to the Civil Court for bringing succession certificates and the ornaments should be returned to the persons so held entitled. Each item in the list should be considered to be an independent case, the record of which shall be maintained as the record is maintained in a Civil Court. Each case shall be duly entered in a registered register to be especially prepared for that purpose.
' The Committee consisting of the learned District and Sessions Judge and the learned District Magistrate shall submit monthly progress report to this Court through the Deputy Registrar (Judi.).
' It also appears that during the investigation the police through the recovery memo, Exh. PCC, dated 29-9-1979, took into custody as many as 38 articles of household allegedly belonging to Ashraf alias Mahboob from Kothi No,120-3-A Gulberg. These articles were stated to have been purchased by Ashraf alias Mahboob from the money which he had collected from the sale of ornamnents stolen by him during the dacoity in this case. This Ashraf alias Mahboob was said to have been killed in a police encounter. There is no proof on the record that these articles were purchased by him actually with the money or the sale proceeds of ornaments and other property in this case and it was only a guesswork. These articles were later allegedly taken on ' Superdari' by Khalid Salim complainant alongwith a Mazda Car No,909 Model 1975 seized from near Lahore Hotel and Motorcycle Honda No,LEX 1438 from the house of Mst. Sakina widow of Muhammad Shafi Arain of Sodiwal, Multan Road, Lahore allegedly belonging to Nain Sukhia who had purchased it with the sale proceeds of case property in this case. These articles need to be returned to their respective owners and if they cannot be found then the same shall be auctioned as res nullius belonging to the State and their sale proceeds shall be deposited in the Government Treasury being the State Property. Copies of the lists along with registers of money-lending and the recovery memo. Of all .These articles should be sent to the learned District and Sessions Judge and learned Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate, Kasur for further necessary action."
' The abovementioned judgment was challenged in the Petition for Leave to Appeal No,390/91However, at the time of arguments in the petition learned counsel did not challenge the acquittal of the respondent but raised his grievance to that part of the judgment which relate to the disposal of the property which was admittedly recovered from the house of the deceased and was the subject-matter of dacoit resulting in his death. Leave was granted in this case on the A contention of the learned counsel that the order passed with regard to the disposal of such property by constituting a Committee comprising District Magistrate and District and Sessions Judge is not supportable in law.
' We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly no offence was committed with regard to the property which was recovered and taken into possession during investigation of the case from the house of the deceased. As such the learned High Court had nothing to do with such property and it has to be returned to the peison from whom possession it was taken. Section 516-A, Cr.P.C. Dealing with the disposal of property provided as under:-- "516-A. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.--When any property regarding which any offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence, is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy or natural decay, may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of: ' Provided that, if the property consists of explosive substance, the Court shall not order it to be sold or handed over to any person other than a Government Department or office dealing with, or to an authorised dealer in, such substances: ' Provided further This section speaks of two types of properties regarding which Criminal Court has to pass an order i,e, the property regarding which any offence appears to have been committed and the property which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence. Neither of these provisions is applicable to this case as the property in question was recovered from the house of the deceased in which dacoit was committed and taken into possession. It was neither the property regarding which an offence had been committed nor it had been used in the commission of offence. Such being the case even if the property in question was not required but had been taken into possession the Court was duty bound to have ordered its return to the person from whom possession it was taken i,e, to the complainant or to the heirs of the deceased from the house which was subjected to dacoit. Reliance can be placed on Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Sargodha v. Ahmed Bakhsh (PLD. 1970 Supreme Court 343) wherein distinction has been drawn in the application of sections 516(a) and 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code. First deals with the disposal of property in question pending trial of the case while the later makes provisions for disposal of property on conclusion of the trial. Rest of the property regarding which offence of dacoit appears to have been committed and its ownership is not disputed the Court has to order its return to its rightful owner. However, if there is dispute about its title, such question has to be determined by the Civil Court as provided for under section 517, Cr.P.C. And possession delivered to the person found entitled to it. Accordingly, this appeal is accepted the order of learned High Court is set aside and it is directed that the property taken into possession from the house of the deceased be returned to the heirs of the deceased. The observation of the learned High Court with regard to raising of loan and pleading of ornaments are uncalled for and hereby quashed. Similarly the articles recovered by the police during the investigation of the case allegedly belonging to Muhammad Ashraf alias Mehboob which are stated to have been purchased from the money which he had received by the sale of ornaments the subject of dacoit in this case, which were later on given on Supardari to the complainant, along with Mazda Car and Honda Motorcycle belonging to Nain Sukhia, who had allegedly purchased it with the sale proceed of the case property, all these are to be returned to their respective owners. If there is involved any question of title the same shall be left to be determined by the Civil Court.