Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD BAKHSH VS Respondent: THE STATE
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Muhammad Munir Khan Title: MUHAMMAD BAKHSH vs THE STATE Case No.: Criminal Revision No.135 of 1983 Date of Judgment:1990-05-27 Reported As: 1991 P Cr. L J 367 Result: Order accordingly
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT Muhammad Bakhsh petitioner was tried under section 379/411, P.P.C. By Assistant Commissioner, Rajanpur on the charge of deceitfully removing Rs.100 from the pocket of Muhammad Nawaz. On the conclusion of the trial he was convicted under section 411, P.P.C. And sentenced to one year's R.I. The appeal filed by him against the conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajanpur on 24-5-1983. Hence this revision. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defence evidence was neither discussed nor disbelieved by the Courts below and as such, the conviction of the petitioner is illegal. The learned counsel for the State has opposed this petition. 3. I have considered the matter. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that in his defence the petitioner had produced two witnesses namely Allah Wasaya and Pathana Khan who had supported the plea of the petitioner that he was involved falsely due to quarrel with the complainant over a seat in the bus. The learned Assistant Commissioner has simply narrated the evidence given by the D.Ws. He has neither discussed nor disbelieved the same. The learned Sessions Judge has also not discussed the evidence. He has not applied his mind to it. He simply stated that "the evidence of defence witnesses did not in spire any confidence. Therefore, it was rightly rejected by the trial Court." This being the position, the conviction of the petitioner cannot be sustained. 4. Despite this finding I decline to remand the case to the trial Court for the reason that occurrence took place in 1981 and the petitioner has already suffered agony of protracted trial. He has remained in jail for some months as an under-trial prisoner and convict. His appeal was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on 24-5-1983. He was allowed bail by this Court on 20-11-1983 which
---
## Page 2
shows that he remained in jail for six months even after the dismissal of his appeal. So, the revision is disposed of accordingly. N.H.Q./M-2462/L