Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 561, 517

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561-A-Quashment of proceedings-Accused discharged in one case (such order not' challenged in appeal or revision) subjected to further prosecution on same charges in remaining cases involving same property and support ed by evidence essentially same as in first case-Further prosecution,, held, an abuse of process of Court-Proceedings quashed (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 517-Disposal of property-Discharged accused making no claim to property alleged to have been seized from him but trial Court nevertheless ordering return of same to him after conclusion of trial-Normal procedure of returning property to person from whose possession it was recovered, held, not applicable to case, in circumstances-Question of ownership having not been gone into in judgment, trial Court had no grounds to believe that property belonged to accused-Order of return, held unreasonable-Claimants should, in circumstances, have been directed to establish their title in civil Court-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 379 & 411.   JUDGMENT These five petitions, bearing Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 3954, 5052, 5054 and 5056 of 1968 and 2746 of 1969, pray for the quashing of the trials of the petitioners under sections 379/411, P. P. C., on the basis of five challans. Three of these cases 'are pending in the Court of A. D. M., Gujranwala, and two in the Court of another Magistrate there. 2. The facts may be briefly stated. The present petitioners, namely, Hafeeaullah, Zulfiqar Ali and Muhammad Ishaq, were sent up for trial under section 379/411, P. P. C. on the allegations that they were in possession of copper wire which was a stolen property belonging to the Telephone Department. They were tried in a ease along with one Muhammad Anwar by Mr. Waqar Ahmad, Magistrate First Class, Lahore, who discharged the petitioners and Muhammad Anwar on the short ground that Inayat Ali and Abdul Sattar, recovery witnesses, were declared hostile by the prosecution as they did not support the prosecution that the case-property was recovered from the possession of the accused persons, and that the only witness who could support the story of…