P L D 1954 Peshawar 50 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD SHAFI, ACTG. J. C.‑Qaribullah, son of Said Ahmad, Sher, son of Ghulam Hussain and Sher Zaman, son of Ahmad, were convicted under section 447 P. P. C., and each one of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25, or in default of `the payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. A revision petition against this order was accepted by me on the 7th of October 1952. I acquitted all the three accused and ordered that the fine, if paid, should be refunded to them. Before, however, the accused were acquitted by this Court, on 3rd March 1952, they were dispossessed of the land and its possession was delivered to the complainant Nawabzada Mohammad Ismail Khan. The, acquitted accused applied to the trial Court for the delivery of possession back to them, which application was rejected on the ground that the Court was functus officio, and had no jurisdiction to restore the possession. Qaribullah and his two companions have now made an appli cation under section 522 Cr. P. C. to this Court for the restoration of possession of the land to them. A perusal of section 522 Cr. P C would show that it authorizes a Court, when it convicts a person of an offence attended by criminal force, or show of force, or of criminal intimidation, and it appears to it that by such force, or show of force, or criminal intimidation any person has been dispossessed of any immovable property, to restore the possession of the same to the person dispossessed within one month from the date of the conviction. It does not authorize the Court to restore the possession of the land to the accused, if the latter is acquitted by the higher Court. Section 522 Cr. P C, then, obviously has no application to the present case at all. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent is that there is no provision of law under which the petitioners can be restored the possession of the land in question. It is impossible to imagine that a Court has no power to do justice, or redress a wrong, merely because there is no specific provision to meet the requirements of a particular case. Every Court must be presumed to possess an inherent power to do the right and to undo the wrong in the case of administration of justice. In any case, under section 561‑A, this Court has ample power to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It will be denying justice to the petitioners if they were told that there was no express provision in law, which could help them to undo the wrong done to them by an erroneous order of the learned trial Magistrate. I consequently order in the exercise of the inherent powers vested in me under section 56l‑A Cr. P C that the possession of the property in dispute be delivered back to the petitioners. This shall be done by the learned trial Court. Orders announced. A. H Prayer granted