Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1954, decided on I st November 1954.
(On appeal from the Judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, dated the 22nd, May 1953, in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 1953.)
‑Offence of receiving stolen property under S. 411, P. P. C.‑Property alleged to be part of 3 different thefts of different dates but recovered from accused at one and the same time In the absence of evidence to prove that stolen articles were received at 3 different times, 3 separate convictions and sentences cannot be sustained‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of ‑ 1898), S. 35.
In the absence of any evidence to prove that the stolen articles were received by the appellant not at one and the same time but at different times separate convictions and sentences cannot be legally sustained.
Appellant was convicted under section 411 P. P. C., on three counts and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years under each. count the‑ sentences to run consecutively.
No evidence was adduced as to when the stolen articles were received by the appellant.
The property recovered from appellant at one and the same time was alleged to belong to 3 different thefts of 3 different dates and belonging to 3 different persons.
Held, that the separate counts for receiving. stolen property should be treated as a single offence although the thefts relating to them may have taken place on different dates in different places and regarding properties belonging to different persons and the appellant. should be convicted of only a single offence under section 411, P. P. C.,
Ganesh Sahu v. Emperor 50 Cal. 594, and Emperor v. Bishun Singh and another A I R 1925 Pat. 20 ref.
S. A. Kareem, Advocate, Federal Court, instructed by M. Siddiq, Attorney, for Appellant.
A. R. Changez, Advocate‑General, Punjab (C. M. Shard
Advocate, Federal Court with him) instructed by Ijaz Alb Attorney, for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 1st November 1954.
‑Appellant Rafiq‑ud‑Din was convicted vender section 411 of the Penal Code on three counts and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years under each count by the Cantonment Magistrate, Lahore, the sentence to run consecutively. Upon appeal the . Lahore High Court maintained the convictions but as regards the sentences made one of them run concurrently with the other two.
It appears that on the 10th September 1952, the house of the appellant was searched by the police and certain properties alleged to be stolen properties were ‑ recovered from there. Some of the properties recovered were claimed by Khan Muhammad Zaman (P. W. 2) as stolen on 4th September 1952, some were claimed by Aftab Ahmad Khan (P. W. 12) as stolen on the 6th September 1952, and some were claimed by Mirza Muhammad Naqi (P. W: 4) as stolen in June 1952.
No charge, however, was framed or evidence adduced by the prosecution as to when the stolen articles were received by the appellant i.e., whether at one and the same time or on different dates and occasions.
Such being the position, the question arises whether in the above circumstances different convictions and sentences on each of the three counts under section 411 Penal Code would be warranted by law.
In our opinion in the absence of any evidence to prove that the stolen articles were received by the appellant not at A one and the same time but at different times separate convic tions and sentences cannot be legally sustained. In the circumstances of the case we would treat the separate counts for receiving stolen property as a single offence although thee o thefts relating to them may have taken place on different dates in different places and regarding properties belonging to different persons. Reference in this connection may be made to the cases of Genesh Sahu v. Emperor 50 Cal. 594 and Emperor v. Bishuo Singh and another AIR 1925 Pat. 20.. We accordingly set aside separate sentences on two of the counts and maintain the conviction of the appellant for only a singh offence under section 411 Penal Code and uphold the sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment thereunder.
A. H. Order accordingly,
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer