Muhammad Shamoon vs State Ss — 2024 MLD 1970 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Muhammad Shamoon VS State Ss. 517 & 520---Order for disposal of property regarding which offence committed---Certain amount was recovered by Railway Police from the petitioners as the same was allegedly embezzled by them---After their acquittal from the High Court petitions of the petitioners for return of their money were declined---Order passed by the Trial Court clearly spoke that the petitions were not decided on merits but on the technical ground that Trial Court lacked jurisdiction due to acquittal order passed by the High Court---Railway Department was contesting the claim on the basis of facts and record of Trial Court was also not before the Court and counter claims of the parties required a factual inquiry based on recording of evidence, if necessary, by the Trial Court/Special Judge (Central) to determine entitlement of petitioners to alleged amount, which function could not be undertaken by the High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction---Therefore, Special Judge (Central)/Trial Court could better examine the entire record while assessing the entitlement of the petitioners for the amount claimed---Though S.104, Cr.P.C., authorized the Court to impound any document or thing, yet during the trial and after conclusion it could decide the fate of such property including destruction, confiscation and delivery to person entitled---When the accused during the trial claimed the property as his own, then on acquittal he was entitled to receive it back straightaway by the order of Trial Court but when the situation was otherwise then Court must decide the question again by providing opportunity to prove the entitlement and also the reason for disowning of such property during the trial and Court could presume any fact while deciding application for such a claim---Section 517, Cr.P.C., in such a case provided jurisdiction to Court to decide all questions arising out of acquittal order---Said Section is somewhat like S.47 of C.P.C. which States that all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree is passed and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree shall be decided by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit---Similarly, as Ss.379, 425 & 442, Cr.P.C., state that all orders passed by Court of Reference, Appeal and Revision shall be certified to the lower Court which shall pass orders conforming to the judgment and order of the High Court and if necessary, record shall be amended in accordance with law---Thus, in such way lower Court becomes an executing Court like one under S.47, C.P.C., therefore, it can decide all ancillary questions relating to case property in accordance with law---Revision petitions were allowed by setting aside impugned order and matter was remanded to Special Judge (Central) to decide the application of the petitioners again within two months positively after perusal of record and by providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

Muhammad Shamoon vs State Ss — 2024 MLD 1970 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 MLD