Pakistan Penal Code Penal Code (XLV of 1860), section 71 accused (under section 411) The right of recovery of the thief is evidence of theft only. Is a crime under the law. A burglar, recovering stolen property from his possession was, in fact, evidence of theft and cannot be proved to be a separate offense under section 411. Convictions It was unlawful for India to punish or punish the accused under Sections 379 and 41.
P. L. D. 1949 Baluchistan 14
Before Bacon, J. C.
KHANO‑Accused‑---Petitioner
Versus
CROWN‑Complainant‑Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 12 of 1949, decided on 16th May 1949, of the order of Magistrate First Class, Chaman, dated 23rd February 1949.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 71---Accused (under S. 411) himself thief‑Fact of recovery only evidence of theft--- Recovery of stolen properly does not constitute separate offence ‑Conviction and sentences under Ss. 379 and 411 improper.
The accused himself being the thief, the recovery of stolen property from his possession was in fact evidence of theft and cannot constitute a separate offence under section 411 Indian Penal Code. It was, improper to convict and sentence the accused under both sections 379 and 41.
Bacon J. C.‑---A perusal of the records of this case discloses the fact that the accused was sentenced separately for offences under section 379 and 411 Indian Penal Code. He was found guilty and was sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100, or in default to two months' further rigorous imprisonment ‑under section 379 I. P. C. and because same of the stolen property in the case was recovered from his pos3ession he was further convicted under section 411 I. P. C. and sentenced to pay a further fine of Its. 100, or in default two month's rigorous imprisonment. As both the fines were paid into Court, the accused wa6 released from jail on completion of one months rigorous imprisonment.
The accused himself being the thief, the recovery of stolen property from his possession was in fact evidence of theft and cannot constitute a separate offence under section 411 1. P. C. For the above reason I hold that it was improper to convict and sentence the accused under both sections 379 and 411 for the same offence and I accordingly set aside his conviction under section 411 I. P. C. the sentences as amended will now read as one month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100, or in default two months further rigorous imprisonment under section 379 I. P. C.
The sum of Rs. 100, paid by the accused as fine for his conviction under section 411 I. P. C. shall be refunded to him.
A.H. Sentences amended.
Related judgments — Judicial Commissioner Court Balochistan, 1949
