2002 PLP 3462 (YLR)

The applicant, through this Criminal Revision Application has impugned the order dated 19‑2‑2002 passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge Karachi South whereby he dismissed the application moved under section 516‑A, Cr.P.C. by the learned counsel for the applicant praying for return of articles robbed from his house by the culprits against whom Sessions Case No.62 of 2000 is pending trial. Brief facts leading to the filing of this criminal revision application are that on 30‑12‑1999 the applicant lodged an F.I.R. bearing No.288 of 1999 under section 392/34, P.P.C: at Police Station Artillery Maidan Karachi stating therein that on the eventful day when he reached at his residence being Flat No. 101, Farooq Arcade, situated at First Floor, he saw one young boy was standing behind him and while he was enquiring his whereabouts and questioning about his standing, his two other partners came and asked the complainant for his house. It is further disclosed in the F.I.R. that complainant being frightened took them to upstairs 'at his' house where they on the point of pistol demanded us to hand over whatever we had have. However, they took total amount of Rs.1,75,000 golden ornaments, prize bonds, saving certificates. Insta‑Phone Cards anal after looting they ran away. Investigation followed and on 4‑1 -2000 the Police arrested six accused persons in the above said case and recovered robbed property from their possession and consequently they were challaned in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Karachi, South, who transferred the same to the Court of learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (South) where the case is pending. The applicant filed an application before the learned trial Judge under section 516‑A, Cr.P.C. for return of the robbed property, details of which is mentioned in the memo. of application, which was dismissed by him by an order dated 19‑2‑2002 which has been impugned in this criminal revision application. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the real owner of the property from whose possession it was robbed. It has further, been contended that the incident took place on 30‑12‑1999 and the accused persons were challaned on 29‑1‑2000 and since then the case is pending for trial but the trial Court has failed to proceed with the matter and there is no hope that the matter may be concluded in near future. It has also been contended that the applicant undertakes, to produce the articles as and when required by the trial Court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State concedes to the return or robbed property subject to the condition that as and when the trial Court will require, the same would be produced by the applicant. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel, perused the record and in the circumstances as well as no objection by the learned Additional Advocate General. and inclined to allow this criminal revision application. Accordingly the trial Court is directed to return the robbed property to the applicant on superdaginama. Criminal revision application stands disposed of. N.H.Q./M‑379/K Criminal revision accepted.