1. ' Mst. Rashida Begum was tried under section 379/411, P. P. C. By Ch. Abdul Latif Khan, Magistrate Section 30 Sahiwal, who vide his judgment dated 27-2-1975 found that the offences with which she was charged stood unproved against her because she had claimed the property to be her own.
2. Therefore, the property after her acquittal was handed over to her. The learned Court also observed that the P. Ws. Who had claimed the property as their own had failed to establish their entitlement over the same. Aggrieved against this order, three separate appeals were filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who vide his judgment dated 28-2-1976 found the proposition otherwise, relying on three judgments (1973 P Cr. L J 1, 1972 C M R 159 and PLD 1970 SC 343). He observed that the learned trial Court was not justified to hand over the alleged stolen property back to Mst.
3. Rashida and, in fact, the same should have been deposited in the malkhana and the parties should approach the civil Court to establish their title vis-a-vis the property in dispute.
4. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. It is the case of both the parties that the judgment of the trial Court was not challenged through an appeal or revision against acquittal in any Court of law. Therefore it would be safe to conclude that the same has attained finality. With regard to the proposition of law as propounded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, I have perused the two Supreme Court rulings with respect of which one is Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Sargodha v. Ahmad Bakhsh (1) and the second one Ghulam Jillani v.
5. 11:uhammad Yousuf and another (2). In the former authority their Lordships {{FOOT NOTE}}
(I) PLD 1970 SC 343 (2) 1972 SCM R 159 {{FOOT NOTE}} have unequivocally held that if a property is recovered from the possession of a person and the person is acquitted or exonerated of the charge while claiming the same, such property is to be restored to the person from whom this is recovered except in special circumstances. While in the latter authority their Lordships are of the view that the discretion exercised by the Court concerned should not be interfered with unless and until there are very strong reasons to act otherwise.
6. However, the principle enunciated is identical. While going through the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, I do not find any reason given by him which compelled him to interfere with the discretion so exercised by the learned trial Court or any special circumstances which actuated him to come to this conclusion.
3. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the view taken by the learned trial Court was absolutely in accordance with law as laid down and unless and until some strong reasons were available with the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he was not justified to interfere with the same. The result is that I accept the revision petition, set aside the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge as being without any justification and maintain the judgment of the learned trial Court.