Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 408 of 1983, heard on 5th November, 1983.

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--

---Ss. 411, 420, 468 & 471--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.342- Car having been stolen--Accused submitting application to department for transfer of stolen car to his name--Non-judicial paper bearing affidavit purchased by accused--Accused selling car in question to another person against receipt--Delivering photo copy of his own identity card to purchaser--Commission agent corroborating fact of sale by accused--No defect in- recording statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C. was found as all relevant circumstances were put to accused--Accused, held, was rightly convicted and sentenced.

Dr. Farooq for Petitioner.

Irshad Ahmad for the State.

Date of hearing: 5th November, 1983.

This revision is directed against the order dated 6-7-1983 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore whereby he upheld the conviction of the petitioner under sections 411, 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. but reduced the period of sentence to R.I. for one year on each count with fine or in default to undergo R.I. for further period of 3 months on each count. All the sentences were to run concurrently.

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the revision are that on 15-1-1982 a Car No. PRD 2899 belonging to Riaz Ahmad was stolen from the Fortress Stadium. He reported the matter to the police. The car was recovered from a workshop situated at Nisbet Road, on 24-1-1982. The investigation revealed that the petitioner alongwith 2 others had stolen the car and got it transferred to his name and later on sold the same to one Muhammad Aslam of Karachi for a sum of Rs.52,500. He had issued a transfer letter and receipt in his favour and had also delivered to him a photostat copy of his identity card.

3. After examining the prosecution and the defence evidence, the learned trial Magistrate, vide his order dated 30-5-1983 acquitted Abdul Rashid and Umar Din co-accused of the petitioner but convicted and sentenced the present petitioner. HP filed an appeal which subject to the modification in the sentences was also dismissed.

4. It is inter alia contended that the conviction of the petitioner is illegal, that the provisions of section 342, Cr.P.C. were not strictly followed as explanation of the petitioner was not obtained on each of the documents relied upon by the prosecution.

5. The theft of the car stands established by the evidence of Riaz; Ahmad (P.W.1). He had reported the matter to the police, vide reports Exh.P.A. Muhammad Sadiq (P.W.2) Clerk in the office of the Excise) and Taxation Department, Sahiwal had proved that it was the petitioner who had submitted the application Exh. P.B. for the transfer of the, car in question to his name alongwith the transfer letter Exh.P.C and affidavit Exh. P.D. Ikram-ul-Haq (P.W.3) Stamp Vendor deposed about the sale of non-judicial stamp paper to the present petitioner on which affidavit Exh.P.D. was prepared. Muhammad Aslam (P.W.7) deposed about having purchased the car in question from the petitioner for a sum of Rs.52,500 through receipt Exh.P.H. He also stated that thE petitioner had delivered to him photostat copy Exh.P.J. of his identity Card alongwith the transfer letter. Shamshad (P.W.6) Commission Agent of Karachi corroborated Muhammad Aslam (P.W.7).

6. From the above evidence, the theft of the car as well as the petitioner's getting it transferred in his name and later on disposing it of through sale at Karachi stands fully established. No reason whatsoever appears to doubt the testimony of the official of the Excise and Taxation Department and the buyer P.W.7 which stands corroborated by Shamshad P.W.6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any infirmity in their evidence or to show as to why they had deposed against him. The trial Court has been very fair in discarding the positive report of the Handwriting Expert for the reason that the expert had not been cited as a witness by the prosecution and nor was any application made to the Court for summoning him. No defect appears in the recording of the statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. of the petitioner because all the relevant circumstances were put to him.

For the above reasons, the petitioner was rightly convicted and sentenced. Finding absolutely no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order, I dismiss the revision.

S. A.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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