Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 294 of 1963, decided on 12th December 1967

Ss. 380 & 411‑Theft‑Eye witnesses having no animosity against accused‑Recovery of stolen articles effected from accused‑Mere fact that F. I. R. was lodged after completion of investigation by the Police Officer‑Held, did not make trial illegal, in circumstances of case‑Conviction main tained‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 154.

S. 154‑F. I. R. lodged after completion of investigation by Police Officer‑Not admissible In evidence ‑‑Circumstance, however, does not make trial illegal.

S. 439‑Conviction under Ss. 380 & 411, P. P. C.‑Pending Revision petition, High Court granting bail to accused (female) 4 years back‑Conviction maintained but sending accused back to jail not considered desir able‑Sentence of 18 months' R. I reduced to period already under gone (about 3 months).

Khakan Babar for Petitioner.

Zamir Ahmad for the State.

This revision petition by Mst. Rabia Bibi is under section Cr. P. C. whereby she challenges her conviction under sections 380 and 411, P. P. C. She was sentenced to 18 months R. I. under each count on 28‑1‑1963, by a local Magistrate of Sialkot district. Her appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Sialkot on 20‑2‑1963. Hence this revision petition.

2. The case for the prosecution is that on 22‑12‑1962, one Abdul Hameed, cloth merchant of Daska Bazar, apprehended the loss of a Than of Chheant cloth immediately after the petitioner had left his shop where she came in order to purchase some piece of cloth. The complainant called out the lady suspecting her, but she did not stop. He and Muhammad Anwar then ran up to her and apprehended her. A Than of Chheant cloth, which she was holding under her arm fell on the ground. In the meantime, Fazal Din H. C. (P. W. 7) appeared at the scene. The matter was reported to him arid he recorded the statement Exh. P. A. of Abdul Hameed at the spot and a formal F. I. R. was registered at Daska Police‑station at 4.05 p.m. The accused was found in possession of Shaneel Than, Exh. P. 2, Chaddar Exh. P. 3, another Than Exh. P. 4. Dosuti Than Exh. P. 5 an iron tub, Exh. P. 6, and a pair of Jooti, Exh. P. 7. The Than Exh. P. 1, stolen from the shop of Abdul Hameed was taken into possession, vide memo. Exh. P. B., which was witnessed by Muhammad Anwar (P. W. 6), Abdul Hameed (P. W. 1) and Sardar Muhammad (P. W. 3). How ever, the other stolen articles were taken into possession, vide memo. Exh. P. C. This recovery was witnessed only by Muhammad Anwar and Abdul Hameed P. Ws.

3. The case was investigated by Fazal Din, H. C. (P. W. 7) and the lady was challaned.

4. At the trial, the prosecution produced Abdul Hameed (P. W. 1), Abdul Hakim (P. W. 2), Sardar Muhammad (P. W. 3), Mehr Din (P. W. 4) and Ghulam Mustafa (P. W. 5), all shop keepers in the Daska Bazar, and one Muhammad Anwar (P. W. 6) a person who was selling fruit on a Rerf in the bazar in front of the shop of Abdul Hameed. The stolen articles were claimed by Abdul Hameed P. W. and the other shopkeepers, and in their cross‑examination no enmity has been brought against them.

5. The plea of the petitioner was that she was involved in a false case and in her defence she produced two witnesses Allahditta (D. W. 1) and Hakam (D. W. 2), who deposed that on the canal bridge a cyclist hit the lady and there was exchange of abuses between them and then she was taken in the police‑station.

6. I have carefully gone through the evidence with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am afraid I have not been able to find anything in favour of the petitioner. It is a cast‑iron case unfortunately, and the only submission, which the learned counsel could make on behalf of the petitioner is that the F. I. R. in this case was lodged after completion of the investigation of the case by the Head‑constable concerned. Be that as it may, the trial does not become illegal even if this argu ment is accepted. The only possible result, which can accrue is that the F. I. R. becomes inadmissible in evidence but that would not injure the prosecution case as the eye‑witnesses have no animosity against the petitioner and the recovery has been affected from the lady of the stolen articles.

7. The petitioner was granted bail by this Court in 1963. It is undesirable to send her back to jail. She has already under gone about three months' R. I. I would, therefore, maintain her conviction, but reduce her sentence to that already undergone. With these observations this revision petition is dismissed.

. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.