Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL SATTAR VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Muhammad Munir KhanMalik Allah Yar Khan,Tariq Mehmood Chaudhary
1988 M L D 390
1988 M L D 390
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Munir Khan, J
ABDUL SATTAR‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 929 of 1975, heard on 23rd December, 1987.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 411‑‑Major contradiction existing in statements of complainant and Investigating Officer with regard to place of recovery of stolen property‑ Prosecution story of recovery of property, therefore, rendered doubtful‑‑Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted.
Malik Allah Yar Khan for Petitioner.
Tariq Mehmood Chaudhary for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 23rd December, 1987.
JUDGMENT
The facts giving rise to this revision, briefly, are that Abdul Sattar petitioner was tried under sections 457, 380, 411, P.P.C. He was convicted by Magistrate 1st Class on 13‑5‑1975 under section 411, P.P.C. for dishonestly retaining the stolen property. The appeal filed by him against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang on 20‑10‑1975, hence this revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Courts below did not consider the major contradictions in the statements of the complainant and the Investigating Officer, inasmuch as, the complainant stated that the stolen property was brought from Sheikhupura, whereas the prosecution case is that the stolen property was recovered from the petitioner in a Naka‑bandi made at Kot Smail, District Jhang. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgments of the Courts below.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the learned Courts below have not attached due importance to the major contradictions in the statements of the complainant and the I Investigating Officer. According to the complainant, the stolen property was recovered in District Sheikhupura whereas the Investigating Officer stated that A the stolen property was recovered from the petitioner m a Naka‑bandi made at Kot Smail, District Jhang. This contradiction is sufficient to make the prosecution story of the recovery of stolen property from the petitioner, doubtful.
For what has been said above, the revision is accepted and while giving benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail. He stands discharged of bail bonds.
M.Y.H./A‑254/L
Petition allowed.