1997 P Cr (PLP)

Date of hearing: 18th December, 1996. This petition for revision is preferred against the order of the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur, dated 20-9-1994 whereby the request of the petitioner for restoration of his seized property was refused. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was booked under Article 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Had) Order, 1979 vide F.I.R. No.19/1988 by P.N.C.R., Sukkur, for being in possession of 1500 grams of heroin and 2 Kgs: of opium. At the time of his arrest his Honda Motor Cycle 125 cc, golden rings weighing one Tola, a Seiko Watch and N.I.C. and cash of Rs.40 were recovered and seized. The trial Court sentenced him to imprisonment for life. On his appeal before this Court, life imprisonment was converted to 10 years' R.I. vide judgment dated 9-3-1992. The petitioner preferred the 2nd appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 29-6-1994 allowed the appeal and acquitted the petitioner. However, the Supreme Court did not pass a specific order in respect of the seized properties of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner after winning his acquittal from the Supreme Court approached the trial Court and filed an application under section 516-A Cr.P.C. for the return of the above properties, but the trial Court dismissed this application on the ground that it was the Supreme Court who has allowed the appeal, therefore only that Court is competent to dispose of the case property. Hence this petition for revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.A.-G., Sindh, who appeared for the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the trial Court has relied on section 520, Cr.P.C. which reads as follows:

"Any Court of appeal, confirmation, reference or revision may direct any order under section 517, section 518 or section 519, passed by a Court subordinate thereto to be stayed pending consideration by the former Court, and may modify, alter or annul such order and make any further orders that may be just." According to the learned counsel, this section does not restrict the trial Court from releasing the properties of an accused after he has been acquitted by the Appellate Court. Learned A.A.-G. has also concurred to the view of the learned counsel for the petitioner. After hearing both the counsel, I am of the view that the learned trial Court is not restricted from releasing the seized property in the circumstances of this case. The operative part of the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 29-6 1994 is in the following words:

"For the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal, set aside conviction and sentence of the appellant and acquit him of the charge." These words are clear in that the petitioner was acquitted of the charge against him in this case. It is true that the Supreme Court has not specifically given an order with regard to the seized property, but when the appeal of the petitioner has been allowed in toto, he is acquitted in unconditional terms and his conviction and sentence are set aside, there is no reason to deprive him of the I logical consequence of his acquittal. If the properties were seized in consequence of the charge levelled against him, then his acquittal should necessarily result in the release of those properties. The order of the Honourable Supreme Court that they "acquit him of the charge" logically implies that he is entitled to all the reliefs consequent to his acquittal, including the release of his property seized under that charge. Unless the Appellate Court exempts a particular relie in express terms, the order of acquittal should entail all the consequential effects thereof. A separate order for each and every consequence of the acquittal is not necessary. Therefore, the trial Court, acting on the basis of the order of acquittal recorded by the Honourable Supreme Court could have released the property. Section 520, Cr.P.C. referred to by the trial Court gives jurisdiction to the superior Courts to interfere with an order passed by a lower Court under sections 517, 518 and 519, but it does in no way restrict a lower Court from passing an order consequent to, and in compliance with, the order of a superior Court. This petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur is set aside. The properties of the petitioner seized in connection with the charge he is acquitted from by the Supreme Court shall be released forthwith. N.H.Q./1079/FSC Revision petition allowed