Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 759/13 of 1972, decided on 22nd May 1972.

S. 180, Illus. (b)-Bail -Jurisdiction-Theft committed in district A but stolen property received by petitioners in district B-Court in district B granting bail, to petitioners-Contention that theft having been committed in district A Court in district B had no jurisdiction to grant bail-Held, has no force in view of illus. (b) to S. 180.

Shaikh Nisar Qutab for Petitioner.

Ch. Muhammad Ismail for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.

Navid Shehryar for the State.

Rafiq Hussain Shah, Ghulam Hussain Shah and Muhammad Azim Shah, Goldsmiths of Lahore, ware admitted to bail before arrest by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, by his 27th March 1972. This is an application by Muhammad Amir for the cancellation of their bail and has arisen in the following circumstances.

2. A theft was committed in the house of Muhammad Amir petitioner on the night between 5th and 6th February 1972, in village Khunda More, Police Station Mangtanwala, District Sheikhupura. As a result, Rs. 4,020 in cash, 86 tolas of gold and a large quantity of silver were stolen. He lodged a report at Mangtanwala Police Station and the case was registered under section 458/380/411 of the Pakistan Penal Code.

3. Mangtanwala Police recovered some money and gold caring the course of investigation. However, the matter seems to have gone into the hands of C. I. A. . Staff, Lahore, and that police, during the course of investigation, recovered 30 tolas of gold from one Noor Muhammad. It was on the disclosure made by Noor Muhammad that the police had to apprehend the respondents, who were stated to have received stolen silver from him.

4. Apprehending danger of arrest at the hands of the police, the petitioners moved the learned Additional Sessions Judge; Lahore and were granted pre-arre3t bail, as indicated above.-

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner and supported by the counsel for the State, that the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Lahore, had no jurisdiction to grant bail. In fact this is the only contention raised before me. I am not inclined to agree with the aforesaid contention because in case of theft and receiving stolen property, by virtue of section 180 of' the Code of Criminal Procedure, a charge of receiving and retaining stolen property can be inquired into and tried either b the Court within local limits of whose jurisdiction the property was stolen or by any Court within local limits of whose jurisdiction the stolen property was received or retained. It is clear from the order of the learned Additional Sessions. Judge Lahore that he summoned the police officer. The Investigating. Officer appeared before him with the record. Presumably, the petitioner who are stated, to be the goldsmiths at Lahore, received the stole property at Lahore, the offence could be tried here as also a Sheikhupura. Under the circumstances, in view of illustration (b) of section 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, could grant bail to the respondents. There is n force in the petition and the same is hereby 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.