Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 566-Q of 1980, decided on 2701 January, 081.

--- S. 561-A read will, Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 411----Quashment of proceedings ---- Cycle found in possession of petitioner 7 years alter its alleged theft---No evidence to show petitioner having had knowledge about stolen nature of cycle- Proceedings quashed, in circumstances.

Mukhtar Ali v. The Stale P L D 1971 S C 725 rel.

M. A. Sabir Nishtar for Petitioner.

Yasin Qazi for the State.

Muhammad Aqil petitioner has moved this petition under section 561-A. Cr. P. C. for quashment of proceedings under section 41 P. P. C. pending against him in the Court of Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Toor, Magistrate First Class. Lahore.

2. The case of the prosecution is that seven years prior 24^thNovember, 1978 a cycle belonging to Basharat Ali complainant was stolen from the graveyard situate at McLeod Road. Lahore. He did not make any report to the Police but got an entry made in the register of stolen cycles maintained by C. I. A. Staff. Lahore. 23^rdNovember, 1978. Akbar Ali A. S. I., C. I. A. Staff, Labour recovered the cycle froth the petitioner and seized it under section 550 Cr. P. C. After the recovery, the complainant identified the cycle hip own and lodged report Exh. P. A. with Police. After the investigation the petitioner was challaned.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner inherited the cycle from his father who died on 26^thJuly 1977 and he had no knowledge that it was stolen property. He further submits that the recovery was made several years after the alleged theft, therefore, presumption of knowledge of stolen nature of property does not arise in this case and even if the prosecution version is accepted, no offence under section 411 P. P. C. is made out against the petitioner. In support of his contention he has relied on Mukhtar Ali v. The State (P L D 1971 S C 725) wherein it was held:-

In the absence of any evidence that the appellant had received the Stolen bicycle dishonestly or had knowledge or reason to believe that the same was stolen his conviction under section 411, P. P. C. cannot be sustained. Possession simpliciter of a stolen property is no offence. If possession is recent the Court will presume that the person found in possession of stolen property is the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen unless he can account for its possession. This presumption, however, did not arise in the present case as possession more than two years after theft could by no stretch of imagination be treated as recent."

The above observations conclude the matter. The case of the prosecu tion taken to its best is that the cycle of the complainant was stolen and it was found in possession of the petitioner seven years after the alleged theft. The learned State Counsel concedes that the prosecution is not in possession of any evidence that the petitioner had the knowledge about the stolen nature of the cycle in the circumstances, there is no possibility of the conviction of the petitioner and continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the Court.

3. I, therefore, allow this petition and quash the proceedings under section 411, P. P. C. pending against the petitioner in the Court of Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Toor, Magistrate First Class, Lahore.

Proceedings quashed,

Find a Lawyer Near You

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