Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 17 of 1967, decided on 4th May 1977.

-- S. 439-Conviction, propriety of-Evidence, misreading of Petitioners accused of offence under S. 411, P. P. C. for finding in possession of stolen WAPDA meter-On own sharing of P. Ws. meter installed by Line-men of WAPDA themselves-Case, held, one of misreading of offence-Convictions and sentences set aside, in circumstances.

Asad Ali Rizvi for Petitioners.

Asad Hussain Zaidi for the State.

Date of hearing : 4th May 1977.

Akhtar Hussain and Mumtaz were convicted and sentenced to six months' R. I. each under section 411, P. P. C. and 379, P. P. C. respectively, alongwith a fine of Rs. 200 each or in default thereof to undergo further one and a half months' R. I. each vide judgment of Magistrate, Second Class (Tehsildar), Leiah dated 16-6-1966. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentences, they filed an appeal before Mr. Ahmad Shafi, District Magistrate, Muzaffargarh, who vide his judgment dated 30-12-1966, while converting the conviction of Mumtaz accused from under section 379, P. P. C. to one under section 411, P. P. C., upheld their conviction and sentences under section 411, P. P. C.

2. Hence, this revision petition, which was admitted by the order of a learned Judge of this Court dated 9-1-1967 and the petitioners were released on bail.

3. The brief facts of the case are that Abdur Rauf, Line Superintendent, P. W. 3, found electric meter bearing No. 32895538 missing from the WAPDA stores about which incident he made a report after thirty-five hours. However, this meter was recovered on 4-12-1965 from the house of one Ismail by the WAPDA authorities because of the fact that an application on behalf of said Ismail was made to them on 16-11-1965 for the installation of the electric meter. However, as it was found that it was not in the knowledge of Ismail that the property installed in his house was a stolen property, therefore, he was not prosecuted but the petitioners were held guilty on the ground that they had actually got this meter installed in his house.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as for the State and have gone through the entire evidence of the case, carefully.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in fact both the Courts below had not appreciated the facts of the case in its true perspective and had also misread the evidence. In this connection he has referred to the statement of Sh. Karim Bakhsh Pleader, P. W. 2 who stated that the meter in question in the house of Ismail was installed by the Line-men themselves. Similarly, he has also taken me through the evidence of Sh. Abdul Aziz P. W. 3 who has similarly corroborated the statement of Sh. Karim Bakhsh P. W. 2 on this aspect of the case. In view of these two admissions from the mouth of two independent witnesses, hardly any offence is made out against the present petitioners. If the meter was installed by the Line-men themselves after receiving some reward from the petitioners or Ismail, then hardly it would be a case of theft or for keeping stolen property in their possession knowing it to be so. This misreading of evidence, which would have concluded the case in favour of the petitioned has resulted in their unjustified conviction. In this connection the delay in lodging the F. I. R. also assumes significance and further reflects on the veracity of the prosecution case and helps the stand of the defence so taken by the petitioners in this behalf.

5. The result of the above discussion is that I accept the revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentences of the petitioners and acquit them. Since, they ate on bail, they will stand discharged of their bail bonds.

Revision allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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