MUHAMMAD SHAHID Versus THE STATE
This criminal revision application challenges an order passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South, which dismissed an application filed under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the interim custody (superdaginama) of property allegedly robbed from the applicant's residence. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to return the recovered property to the complainant while the trial was pending. The High Court observed that the applicant was the rightful owner of the property, which had been recovered from the accused, and noted the significant delay in the trial proceedings. Given the State's concession and the applicant's undertaking to produce the articles whenever required by the trial court, the High Court set aside the impugned order. The court held that in circumstances where the ownership is not disputed and the State offers no objection, the trial court should exercise its discretion to release the case property on superdaginama to the rightful owner, subject to conditions ensuring its production during trial.
- Can a trial court release robbed property to the complainant on superdaginama during the pendency of a trial?
- What factors should a court consider when deciding an application for the return of case property under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 516-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Insta‑Phone Cards anal after looting they ran away.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Criminal revision application stands disposed of.
10. N.H.Q./M‑379/K Criminal revision accepted.