Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No.33 of 1985, heard on 10th February, 1985.

---S.411‑‑Case property, non‑production of‑‑Alleged stolen property not produced in Court as such not identified by witnesses‑‑Held, it could not be said in circumstances that property which was allegedly recovered from accused was same which was stolen‑‑Conviction and sentence set aside and case remanded for retrial according to law.

Ch. Muhammad Ali Sial for Petitioners.

Haji Abaidur Rehman for the State.

Date of hearing: 10^th February, 1985.

The facts giving rise to this petition are that Liaquat Ali and Arif petitioners were tried by Ch. Riaz Ahmed M.I.C., Gujranwala under section 380/411, P.P.C. On the conclusion of the trial, the petitioners were convicted under section 411, P. P. C. and sentenced to six months' R.I. The appeal failed on 18‑1‑1985, hence this revision.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the case property having not been produced in the Court at the time of recording the statements of the witnesses, the petitioners could not have been convicted under section 411, P.P.C., conversely, the learned counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that the learned trial Court has not conducted the trial properly. If the case property was not produced in the Court, the trial Court should have adjourned the case and directed the prosecution to produce the case property. Since the alleged Stolen property was not identified by the witnesses in the Court, therefore, it cannot be said that the property which was allegedly recovered from the petitioners was the same which was stolen away from the Haveli of the complainant. That being the factual position, there is no option but to set aside the conviction and sentence and remand the case to the trial Court for retrial in accordance with law.

4. Since I have set aside the convictions and the sentences and remanded the case for retrial, the petitioners shall be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/ Duty Magistrate, Gujranwala, they will remain on bail till the conclusion of .the trial.

M. A. K. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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