Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 1950, decided on 29th March 195‑1, against the order of Sessions Judge Muzaffarabad, dated 18th November 1950.

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 411‑Accused handed over stolen property to police of own accord to assist in investigation‑Does not give rise to presumption that he is receiver of stolen property in criminal sense.

If a person of his own accord hands over stolen property to the Police in order to assist in the investigation, this action does not give rise to a presumption that he is the receiver of the stolen property in the Criminal sense. On the contrary, the presumption rather is that he was of clear conscience in the matter. On the other hand if it is supposed that he had guilty conscience the presumption would be that he had done this, as a result of some pressure or inducement and the whole transaction will stand on the same footing as an improperly obtained confession.

Abdul Hamid, Advocate and Tasadaq Hussain Taraq, Pleader, for Petitioners.

Muhammad Sharif, Advocate‑General for Azad J. & K. Government.

The Petitioners have been convicted of the offence of receiving property with the knowledge that it was stolen and have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each. The basis of the conviction so far as Niaz Muhammad son of Ghulam Muhammad and Niaz son of Juma are concerned is that certain stolen property was recovered on search of their houses. The conviction of the remaining petitioners is founded on the fact that they produced certain stolen property before the police which property is alleged to have been produced from their houses. The convicts have not claimed the property as their own and have stated that they did not hand over the property to the police. If the prosecution evidence as regards the accused other than Niaz Muhammad son of Ghulam Muhammad and Niaza son of Juma be accepted as correct then it regains un‑explained why these accused handed over the stolen property to the police, if they were in fact guilty. It, is well settled principle of law that if a person of his own accord hands over stolen property to the police in order to assist in the investigation, this action does not give rise to a presumption that he is the receiver of the stolen property in the criminal sense. On the contrary, the presump tion rather is that he was of clear conscience in the matter. On the other hand if it is supposed that he had guilty conscience the presumption would be that be had done this, as a result of some pressure or inducement and the whole transaction will stand on the same footing as an improperly obtained confession. Such inducement or presure would presumably be within the knowledge of the prosecution and if the true state of affairs is not disclosed it is impossible for the Court to arrive at the truth. The conviction of petitioners other than Niaz Muhammad son of Ghulam Muhammad and Niaz son of Juma can not be sustained as it is impossible on the evidence to conclude which presumption should be drawn from the apparently voluntarily production of the property by these accused before the police.

The property from the possession of the Niaz Muhammad son of Ghulam Muhammad was not recovered on one occasion and this fact indicates that there is something wrong with the inves tigation. The house was burgled some ten days before the property was recovered from the possession of Niaz Muhammad son of Ghulam Muhammad. He was arrested when his house is alleged to have been searched first. No reasons have been advanced why the necessity arose for searching his house for the second time. This circumstance makes it very doubtful, whether the property alleged to have been recovered from his possession was in fact so recovered. The evidence about the search of the house Niaza son of Juma is faulty. The witnesses say that some pro perty was found lying in the verandah of the house and some was produced by him before the police from inside his house. It is not stated that any witness accompanied this accused while he was bring ing property for producing it before the police. The evidence thus fails to establish that this accused was responsible for possession of any property said to be stolen property. I, therefore, accept the petition for revision and acquit all the accused. The accused are discharged from their bail bonds.

K. M. A. Petition 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.