' Through this petition under section 439, Cr.P.C., Ghulam Haider alias Gaami has challenged the legality and propriety of the order, dated 16-10-2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lahore, whereby the application moved on behalf of the petitioner for the return of the case property under section 517(1), Cr.P.C. Has been dismissed.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that a case under section 302 read with section 34, P.P.C. At Police Station Satto Katla, vide F.I.R. No,32 of 2001, dated 8-2-2001, for the murder of Imtiaz alias Kaka son of Muhammad Anwar (complainant). During the investigation of the case, two licensed weapons i,e, a pump-action .12 bore gun and a .30 bore pistol were taken into possession. After the completion of the investigation, the case was challaned, which ultimately ended in acquittal on 23- 7-2001 on the basis of a compromise. As regards the case property the trial Court observed as under:-- "The case property shall be disposed of in accordance with law after the decision of appeal/revision, if any."
3. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application to the trial Court for the return of the case property. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application firstly on the ground that the weapons were used in the commission of the crime and secondly on the ground that the acquittal of the petitioner and his wife was based on compromise and not on merit, as such the petitioner was not entitled to claim its restoration.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the weapons recovered by the police during the investigation of the case were actually used in the commission of the crime and that in the event of acquittal, the learned trial Court had no option but to order the restoration of the case property to its owner:
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has not been able to draw the distinction between an acquittal on merit and an acquittal on the basis of compromise. The word "acquittal" has not been defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898), therefore, it shall have its ordinary meaning. According to Chambers' 21st Century Dictionary the word "acquittal" means "a declaration in a Court of law that some one is not guilty of the crime etc., of which they have been accused". In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "acquittal" in Criminal Law has been defined as:-- "The legal and formal certification of the innocence of a person who has been charged with crime; a deliverance or setting free a person from a charge of guilt; finding of not guilty. Also, one legally acquitted by a judgment rendered otherwise than in pursuance of a verdict, as where he is discharged by a Magistrate because of the insufficiency of the evidence, or the indictment is dismissed by the Court or a nol. Pros. Entered. Or, it may occur even though the question of guilt or innocence has never been submitted to a jury, as where a defendant having been held under an indictment or information, is discharged because not brought to trial within the time provided by status.
' Acquittals in .Fact are those which take place when the jury, upon trial, finds a verdict of not guilty.
' Acquittals in law are those which take place by mere operation of law; as where a man has been charged merely as a accessory, and the principal has been acquitted."
6. Whenever a compromise is arrived at with the permission of the Court, it has the effect of acquittal of the accused. The relevant provision of law is reproduced below:-- "The composition of an offence under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded."
7. In the absence of any other interpretation, the acquittal is acquittal whether it is on the basis of a declaration by a Court on the conclusion of the trial that some one is not guilty of the charge or at any stage under section 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. Or on the basis of compromise under section 345, Cr.P.C. Reliance may be placed on the case of Dr. Muhammad Islam v. Government of N.-W.F.P. And others 1998 SCM R 1993. In this case, Dr. Muhammad Islam, a Veterinary Officer (Health) (B-17) posted as Incharge Veterinary Dispensary, Katlang District Mardan, who was suspended from service with effect from 22nd of August, 1989 on account of his involvement in a murder case, registered against him at Police Station Katlang, District Mardan, on 21st of August, 1989. The Additional Sessions Judge, Mardan, discharged/acquitted the accused vide an order dated 9th June, 1992. The concluding paragraph is reproduced below:-- "In view of the above statements, no case stands against the accused, therefore, no charge is framed against them and they are discharged/acquitted from the charge/levelled against them in the present case. They are on bail, their bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties discharged. Case property, if any, he disposed of in accordance with law. File be consigned after completion."
' On the basis of above order Dr. Muhammad Islam moved an application for his re-instatement in service. On 7-4-1993, the competent Authority accepted the application of the appellant and in consequence thereof reinstated him in service with effect from 22nd of August, 1989, vide order, dated 18-4-1993 treating the period from 22-8-1989 to the date of assumption of his duties i,e, 18- 4-1993 as extraordinary leave without pay. Dr. Muhammad Islam made a representation to the concerned Secretary, which was rejected on 19-6:1993. He then filed an appeal before the N.-W.F.P.
Service Tribunal claiming salary and allowances for the said period. This claim of the appellant was contested by the Government on the ground that the acquittal of the appellant was based on a compromise between the parties. This being the position, acquittal of the appellant cannot be held to be honourable so as to entitle him to full pay and allowances for the said period. This plea of the Department prevailed upon the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal filed by Dr. Muhammad Islam, vide its decision dated 24-8-1994, but the Honourable Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan did not approve the decision of the Tribunal and set aside the said decision holding that all acquittals are certainly honourable and that there can be no acquittal which may be said to be dishonourable. The law has not drawn any distinction between these types of acquittals. I may advantageously reproduce the relevant paragraph of the aforementioned judgment which is as under:-- "We are inclined to uphold the above view inasmuch as all acquittals even if these are based on benefit of doubt are honourable for the reason that the prosecution has not succeeded to prove their cases against the accused on the strength of evidence of unimpeachable character. It may be noted that there are cases in which the judgments are recorded on the basis of compromise between the parties and the accused are acquitted in consequence thereof. What shall be the nature of such acquittals? All acquittals are certainly honourable. There can be no acquittals, which may be said to be dishonourable. The law has not drawn any distinction between these types of acquittals."
8. Therefore, I am of the considered view that no distinction can be drawn between an acquittal by way of benefit of doubt and an acquittal on the basis of compromise or under section 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. The consequences in each case would be the same. A criminal trial always ends either in conviction or in acquittal. If it ends in conviction, it is followed by the punishment prescribed under the law as a consequence, but if it ends in acquittal, the accused becomes entitled to all the reliefs consequent to his acquittal including the release of his property seized by the police during the investigation of the case. In the case in hand, the petitioner has been acquitted by the trial Court. Consequently, he would be entitled to get the case property restored in view of the law laid down in 1997 PCr.LJ 500. I, therefore, accept this revision petition and set aside the impugned order.
' The case property is ordered to be delivered to the owner after the verification of the licences by issuing Authority.