Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 105 of 1968, decided on 16th December 1979,

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-

S. 411-Stolen property, possession of-Petitioner raising a counter version from very beginning, claiming cow (subject-matter of charge) to be his own property and for that matter producing evidence in defence-F. 1. R. lodged after recovery of cow allegedly stolen property-Sessions Court failing to discuss evidence on record, ignoring defence evidence altogether and while writing judgment not keeping requirements of S. 367, Cr. P. C. in view-Sessions Court, held, dealt with appeal in perfunctory manner-Petitioner given benefit of doubt and acquitted, in circumstances.-[Judgment].

Abdul Shakoor for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing : 16th December 1979.

The petitioner was tried under section 380/411, P. P. C. by the learned Magistrate, Ferozewala. He was convicted under section 411, P. P. C. and sentenced to six month's R. I. by the Magistrate, vide his order dated 17-5-1967. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura on 23-12-1967.

2. The prosecution version of the occurrence is that on the night between 29-30-1966 a cow belonging to Hashim Ali complainant was stolen from the courtyard of his house in village Miani, Police Station, Narang, District Sheikhupura. The complainant received an information on the following day that same - cow was recovered by C. I. A. Staff in Ferozewala. He went there and identified his cow on 1-11.1966. This cow was stated to have been recovered-by Nakabandi Police party near Kala Khatai Railway Station.

3. The prosecution produced by P. W. 4 Muhammad Zubair, P. W. 5 Muhammad Hussain H. C. to prove the recovery of the cow from the possession of the petitioner:

4. The petitioner was questioned regarding the offence committed by him he pleaded not guilty and claimed the cow to be his own property.

V 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the record of this case and contended that the learned Courts below did not adequately considered the version of the defence, and hurriedly passed the order of conviction. He also submitted that no identification of the cow was held. It was also argued that the learned first appellate Court did not keep, in view, the requirements of section 367, Cr. P. C. while announcing the judgment against the petitioner.

6. It is an admitted fact that the . petitioner did raise a -counts version from the very beginning, claiming the cow to be his own property and for that matter, he also produced evidence in defence. The F. 1. R. in this case was also lodged after the recovery of the stolen property. I a not impressed by statements of the P. Ws. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, dealt with the appeal of the petitioner in perfunctory manner. He failed to discuss the evidence on the record. He ignored the defence evidence altogether. It is clear that he did not keep in view the requirement of section 367, Cr. P. C. while writing judgment in appeal.

7. In the circumstances of this case, I consider it proper to extend benefit of doubt in favour of the petitioner. Consequently this petition is accepted and petitioner is acquitted.

M. Y. M. Petition 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.