' Petitioners in this Constitutional revision petition are Muhammad Akbar and his three sons, namely; Jehangir Akhtar, Muhammad Arif and Aurangzeb. According to the petitioners, car bearing registration No,IDF-5414 belongs to the petitioners and was registered in their name in the records of the Excise and Taxation Office, Motor Registration Authority, Islamabad, on 8-2-1994. In the car registration book, the petitioners are shown as the owners of the vehicle in question. In Hadd Case No,262 of 1994 (State v. Muhammad Akbar and Muhammad Altaf), by judgment, dated 9-2-1995, of the learned Sessions Judge, Peshawar, both the said accused including petitioner No,1 Muhammad Akbar were convicted and sentenced and the car in which the contraband narcotics were found was confiscated in favor of the State. It may be observed here that the other accused, namely, Muhammad Altaf in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Had pleaded guilty to the charge.
' Being aggrieved by the said judgment, petitioner No,1 Muhammad Akbar filed Criminal Appeal 40/I of 1995 before this Court and, by judgment: dated 15-5-1995, conviction and sentence of petitioner No,1 Muhammad Akbar by the trial Court were set aside and he was acquitted of the offence. No order was passed regarding the vehicle which had been conflicted by the judgment of the trial Court which had been set aside.
' Thereafter the 4 petitioners filed an earlier Constitutional Revision No,18/I of 1995 for return of the vehicle which had been confiscated. However, by order, dated 2-7-1995, counsel for the petitioners withdrew the earlier revision petition on the ground that he would "move the trial Court first for the release of the vehicle.
' The petitioners then filed an application before the trial Court but the said application was dismissed by the impugned order, dated 8-10-1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar. It was held as follows:- "Since the judgment of august Federal Shariat Court is silent about the vehicle, so I cannot presume that the confiscation order has been set aside. Rather I am of the fair opinion that the order of the confiscation is still in the field. Finding no force in the .Application. The same is hereby dismissed."
' Hence present revision petition. I have heard Malik Rab Nawaz Noon, learned counsel for the petitioners. No one had appeared on behalf of the State.
2. As observed, by judgment, dated 15-5-1995, criminal appeal filed by petitioner No,1 Muhammad Akbar was allowed and he was acquitted. This Court, while allowing the appeal, reached the following conclusion:-- "In such view of the matter it was proved that the heroin recovered from the car was not owned by appellant Muhammad Akbar and he had got nothing to do with it and actual culprit was co- accused Muhammad Altaf. As such the appeal is accepted. The conviction and sentence of appellant Muhammad Akbar son of Hafiz thulium Raul awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar on 9-2-1994 are set aside. He is acquitted of the offence for which he was convicted and sentenced. He is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged."
3. Admittedly, the car in question belongs to the petitioners including petitioner No,1 Muhammad Akbar. It has been held in the judgment acquitting Muhammad Akbai that the heroin recovered from the car in question was not owned by Muhammad Akbar and that he had nothing to do with it and the actual culprit is co-accused Muhammad Altaf. The prosecution case that petitioner No,1 Muhammad Akbar was also involved in the transportation of the contraband narcotics was not believed and he was acquitted on the ground that he had nothing to do with the heroin in question.
The car in question had been used by co-accused Muhammad Altaf for the purpose of transportation of the said contraband narcotics without knowledge or consent of Muhammad Akbar. In the circumstances, the petitioners, who are owners of the vehicle in question became entitled to possession of the vehicle. It may be observed that the rest of the petitioners, namely, petitioners Nos.2, 3 and 4 were neither accused nor involved in any manner in the said case under the Prohibition Order, 1979.
4. As a result, this criminal Constitutional revision petition is allowed, the order of confiscation of the vehicle in question in favor of the State is recalled and it is directed that the vehicle in question be delivered to the petitioners forthwith.
Revision .