1998 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 265‑K & 517‑‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance. (VI of 1979), S.20‑‑‑Dacoity‑‑‑Delivery of amount to accused recovered from them‑‑‑Police during investigation in dacoity case recovered certain amount from accused allegedly involved in dacoity‑‑‑Accused at the conclusion of trial were acquitted, but Trial Court ordered that recovered amount should be deposited in Government treasury within specified period‑‑ Accused; who after their acquittal, applied for return of amount allegedly recovered from them, had never claimed that amount throughout the proceedings, even in their application filed under S.265‑K, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Accused also did not mention that Police had recovered that amount illegally or that same belonged to them‑‑‑Accused had ample opportunity to lay their claim on amount in question even before passing order by Trial Court to deposit same in Government treasury, but nothing was done by them‑‑‑Trial Court, in circumstances, had rightly rejected application of accused flied by them under S.517, Cr.P.C. for return of amount to them. Alhaj Farid Gul Khan for Applicants. Habibur Rashid for the State. This order will dispose of criminal revision under section 439 read with section 517, Cr.P.C. The applicants are aggrieved by the order, dated 13‑11‑1997 passed by the learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi- South whereby application submitted by the applicants under section 517, Cr.P.C. was rejected. The brief background of the matter is that the applicants were involved in F.I.R. No.258 of 199:1 for the offence under section 20 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 registered at Police Station C.I.A., Karachi, as allegedly a dacoity took place in the shop of one Muhammad Ausaf and cash amount of Rs.1,40,000 was looted. During investigation the police recovered Rs.10,000, 1.1,000, 9,000 and 10,000 from all the four accused/applicants respectively. At the conclusion of the trial they were acquitted by the order, dated 23‑10‑1995 having been passed on application under section 265‑K, Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court, however, ordered that the recovered amount of Rs.40,000 be deposited in the Government Treasury within seven days. Thereafter, application under section 517, Cr.P.C. was moved on 23‑10‑1995 which was ultimately rejected. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned State Counsel and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicants mainly contended that the learned trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and the claim of the applicants was denied illegally. Learned State Counsel while opposing this revision application submitted that the applicants had never claimed the property throughout the proceedings even in their application under section 265‑K, Cr.P.C., they had not mentioned the, the police had recovered this amount illegally or that it belonged to them. There is considerable force in the submissions of the learned State Counsel. Vie applicants had ample opportunity to lay their claim on the case property even before passing of the property order but nothing was done. Therefore, finding no merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants this criminal revision having no merits is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M‑283/K Revision dismissed.