' Through this Criminal Revision the petitioners have challenged the order dated 28-2-1998 passed by the learned Judge Special Court, Lahore rejecting the petition under sections 523 and 516-A, Cr.P.C. Read with sections 24 and 44 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995 whereby the petitioners had sought Superdari of the articles taken into possession relating to case F.I.R. No, 17/95 dated 3-5-1995 registered under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 read with section 9-C of the Control of Narcotics Substances Ordinance, 1995 with Police Station Anti Narcotic Force, Lahore.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan passed in Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No,174-L of 1997 passed on 23-6-1997 to contend that the articles and the money the Superdari of which is sought belong to the petitioners and are not the case property and are also not required to be produced before the Court on every date of hearing.
3. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition.
4. I have respectfully gone through the judgment dated 23-6-1997 passed by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminl Petition for Leave to Appeal No,114-L of 1997. It was a case where the accuse' moved a petition under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. Before the trial Court for Superdari of certain articles which were allegedly recovered from them at the time their house was raided. The trial Court directed the return of the articles and the revision petition before the High Court which was dismissed on 21-5-1997 and the matter was taken up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Learned counsel for the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vehemently that the goods recovered from the respondents could not be returned to them on Superdari in view of the proviso to section 63 of the Ordinance which reads as under:-- "Provided that nothing contained in section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), or any other provision of the said Code or any other law for time being in force, the custody of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances, any material untensils used for production or manufacture of such drugs or substances or any conveyance used in import, export, transport or transhipment thereof or for commission of an offence under this Ordinance, shall not be given on custody to the accused or any of his associate or relative or any private individual till the conclusion of the case.
' But the contention was held to be misconceived and it was observed that the articles in dispute were recovered from the house of the respondents and were neither a property regarding which an offence had been committed nor these had been used in the commission of an offence, therefore, proviso to section 63 of the Ordinance was not a bar in passing the order of Superdari under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. The petition was dismissed and the order of the learned trial Court giving Superdari was upheld.
5. The items, Superdari of which is being sought were neither a property regarding which an offence had been committed nor those had been used in the commission of offence, therefore, the abovereferred judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on all four applies to the facts of this case and respectfully following the same this petition is allowed and the order of the learned Judge Special Court, Lahore dated 28-2-1998 is set aside and as a result whereof the petition under sections 523 and 516 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sections 24 and 44 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995 shall stand accepted subject to the petitioners' furnishing personal surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Revision .