Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Revision No. 25 of 1981, decided on 3rd June, 1981.
‑‑‑S. 411‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439‑‑Dishonestly receiving stolen property‑‑Investigating Officer choosing no person from village, wherefrom recovery effected, to attest recovery memo, although some persons belonging to village present at spot at time of recovery‑ Case registered after a considerable delay of commission of theft and after complainant identified stolen property allegedly recovered from accused‑‑Material irregularities committed during trial and evidence produced in support of charge against accused not sufficient‑‑Conviction and sentence set aside in circumstances.
Sh. Khizar Hayat for Petitioners.
Niaz Ahmad BokhAri for the State.
Date of hearing: 3rd June, 1981.
The petitioners were convicted by Magistrate First Class, Mailsi, district Vehari, on 16‑12‑1979, under section 411, P.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo six months' R.I. each. The appeal filed by the petitioners against the aforementioned order was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari on 2‑2‑1981. The petitioners have now challenged the order of conviction and sentence passed against them by filing this revision petition in this Court.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned counsel for the State. The main ground on which the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners has been challenged is that the stolen property which was allegedly recovered from the petitioners and which consisted of house‑hold articles was not produced in Court during the trial with the result that it remained unidentified. Learned counsel for the State has conceded that the evidence was recorded by the learned trial Magistrate in the case in the absence of the stolen property. The other ground urged on behalf of the petitioners in support of their petition in that none of the witnesses before whom the stolen property was allegedly recovered from the petitioners belonged to the village in which the recovery was effected. The Investigating Officer had taken the aforementioned witnesses alongwith him to the places from where the recovery was effected.
3. The record of the case supports the above contentions of the petitioners and there appears to be no plausible reason as to why the Investigating Officer could not ask any person from the village from where the recovery was effected to attest the recovery memo. It is in evidence that some persons belonging to the village from where the recovery was effected were also present at the time of recovery. Petitioners contention that the case was registered after a considerable delay of the commission of theft is also significant in the circumstances of the case inasmuch as the case was registered by the police after the complainant had identified the stolen property allegedly recovered from the petitioners.
4. In view of the facts and circumstances noticed above, order of conviction of the petitioner is not legally tenable as not only material regularities were committed during the trial but also the evidence produced in support of the charge against the petitioners was not sufficient. I accordingly accept the revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioners and acquit them. As they are already on bail, they are relieved of the bail bonds.
M.Y.H./3190/L Revision accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer