2025 PLP 2368 (YLR)

Muhammad Tariq Afridi, J.

This petition is directed against the judgment dated 30.04.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bannu, whereby, the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed, upholding the Judicial Magistrate's order dated 25.03.2024, which refused to return the seized cash to the petitioner on Superdari till decision of case.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.01.2024, at about 10:30 hours, the complainant Feroz Khan lodged a report to the effect that on the fateful day, he had gone to Bannu Bazaar in his fielder motorcar bearing Registration No.BC-3743 for the withdrawal of cash from the bank. At about 09:40 hours, after withdrawing Rs.26,00,000/- from Meezan Bank Bannu, he was driving to his village in the motorcar. When he reached Baka Khel, a white 2-D motorcar intercepted his fielder motorcar, and three armed persons with muffled faces alighted from it. They aimed their weapons at the complainant, ordered him to exit his car, and attempted to abduct him. Upon his refusal, all the three persons got into his fielder motorcar and drove it towards Mandi Baka Khel, Bannu. Unarmed and frightened, the complainant was powerless / helpless in the situation to resist or take action.

3. Initially, the complainant lodged the report against unknown culprits for robbing him of his motorcar, cash amount of Rs.2,600,000/-, and a smart phone. Later, on 17.02.2024, he nominated Rifat Ullah, Hakim Jan, and Khayal Zaman as accused in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate.

4. Subsequently, the accused were arrested, and on their pointation, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (allegedly part of the robbed money) was recovered. Thereafter, the petitioner / complainant Feroz Khan submitted an application to the Judicial Magistrate for the return of the aforesaid recovered amount. However, his application was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 25.03.2024, which was also upheld in revision by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bannu vide judgment dated 30.04.2024. Hence, this petition.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. The grounds for declining the petitioner's plea as considered by both subordinate Courts, were twofold. Firstly, the petitioner was not the last possessor of the recovered money. Secondly, no identification parade was conducted to ascertain whether the recovered banknotes were indeed the same as those allegedly robbed from the petitioner / complainant.

7. As far as the first ground is concerned, suffice it to say that the instant case is one of robbery. The petitioner / complainant has specifically mentioned in the FIR that he was robbed of his money. The record confirms that the recovery was made on the pointation of the accused. In such circumstances, the observations that the petitioner / complainant was not the last possessor are without basis / unfounded.

8. As regards the second ground, suffice it to say that the petitioner / complainant was robbed of the cash amount, which he had freshly withdrawn from the bank. It is understandable that the complainant could not recall the details of each banknote, especially when the amount involved was a substantial sum of Rs.26,00,000/-. Therefore, even if an identification parade had been conducted, it would not have served any useful purpose insofar as the plea of the petitioner for interim custody of the recovered money is concerned.

9. Be that as it may, the petitioner is the complainant in the instant case, and as per the record, the recovered amount is shown to be part of the robbed money. While the guilt of the accused on the basis of the recovery is yet to be adjudged at the trial, the petitioner / complainant has succeeded in tentatively establishing his entitlement to the interim custody of the recovered amount.

10. In these circumstances, the impugned judgment and order are not found to be in accordance with law, therefore, the same are not sustainable and are hereby set aside. The amount of Rs.5,00,000/- be returned to the petitioner, subject to his furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Hundred Thousand), with two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate / MOD, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable, and men of means. Before returning the amount to the petitioner, the Judicial Magistrate must ensure that photocopies of each banknote are obtained, duly attested, and placed on the judicial record. The petitioner shall also be bound to produce the same amount or its equivalent as and when required by the Trial Court.

11. With these observations, this petition succeeds and is allowed. However, these observations should not influence the trial judge decision, which will be based on the case's merits. JK/98/P Petition allowed.