' The revision petition is directed against the order, dated 29-11-1984 of Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order, dated 30-8-1984 of Magistrate Ist Class, Jaranwala, whereof learned Magistrate had convicted the petitioners under section 186/34, P.P.C. And sentenced them to undergo 3 months' R.I. Each.
2. F.I.R. Exh.P.A . /1 was registered on an application Exh.P.A. Sent by Khalid Rashid (P.W.1) Sub- Divisional Officer, Electricity WAPDA, Shahkot wherein it was alleged that Abdul Ghafoor, Supervisor had informed him that Maqsood Ahmad and Muhammad Yunas, Linemen of WAPDA had come to him and complained that when they had gone to the tube-well of Muhammad Tufail petitioner for removal of connection of the tube-well as Muhammad Tufail had not paid the Government dues, Abdul Hamid petitioner had snatched the official papers and thereafter all the three petitioners had abused them and pushed them away forcibly. He had also informed the S.D.O. That thereafter he himself had gone to the tube-well but the petitioners had threatened him also that they will finish him. The S.D.O. On receipt of this report had drafted the application Exh.P.A. On the basis of which F.I.R. Exh.P.A./1 was recorded.
3. During investigation E.R.O. (Equipment Removal Order) Exh.P.B. Was taken into possession, produced by Abdul Hamid petitioner, by Muhammad Siddiq, Head Constable who had appeared as P.W.6 (at the time of evidence he had been promoted as A.S.I.) Exh.P.B. Was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.C. And was attested by Abdul Ghafoor, Supervisor and Abdul Hamid Assistant Lineman.
4. At the trial, prosecution in all examined six witnesses. Khalid Rashid, S.D.O. While appearing as P.W.1 re-stated the facts, he had recorded in Exh.P.A. In cross-examination he admitted that before the issuance of Equipment Removal Order, D.C.O. (Disconnection order) is issued. He also admitted that Exh.D.A. Was written by him on application Exh.D.B., submitted by Muhammad Tufail petitioner.
Abdul Ghafoor P.W.2 stated that he had sent Aslam and Maqsood Ahmad Linemen with E.R.O. On 4- 5-1983 and at about 12-00 noon Maqsood Ahmad had come to him and had informed him that the petitioners had snatched the E.R.O. From them whereafter he alongwith Maqsood Ahmad Lineman, again went to the tube-well and demanded the return of E.R.O. But the petitioners instead of returning the E.R.O., threatened that they will shoot them. He further stated that they were not allowed to remove the connection. He also stated that he had reported the matter to the S.D.O. In cross-examination he admitted that the E.R.O. Was issued on 28-4-1983 while the last date for payment of the bill was 29-4-1983. He stated that the bill was not shown to him at that time. He also admitted that the photostat copy of the bill shows the due amount of Rs,156.75. He denied the suggestion that the bill was shown by the petitioners.
' Muhammad Yunas P.W.3 and Maqsood Ahmad P.W.4 stated that they had gone to the tube-well of the accused, the accused had snatched the papers which related to the arrears to be paid by them and when they demanded the return of papers, the accused had threatened them and abused them. Both of them stated that they had informed the Line Superintendent who had accompanied them to the spot but the accused had again abused them and threatened them.
Muhammad Yunas P.W.3 in cross-examination admitted that the accused had told them that they had paid the bill and so the connection should not be removed. None of them has stated that they had informed about the occurrence to Abdul Ghafoor, Supervisor, their statement is that they had informed the Line Superintendent.
' Abdul Hamid, Assistant Lineman appeared as P.W.5 and stated that the E.R.O. Was taken into possession from Abdul Hamid petitioner on 13-5-1983 by the police vide memo. Exh.P.C. Which was signed by him. In cross-examination he stated that he had accompanied the police to Adda Khurrianwala where Abdul Hamid petitioner while in police custody, in handcuffs, had produced the papers by taking out the same from his pocket. According to him the memo. Regarding the taking into possession of E.R.O. Was prepared while sitting on a sweet shop.
' Muhammad Siddiq, Head Constable who had been promoted by that time, had appeared as P.W.6 and stated that the papers were taken into possession from Abdul Hamid petitioner vide memo. Exh.P.C.
5. The petitioners denied the prosecution case and examined in defence Dildar Khan and Khadim Hussain D.Ws. Who stated that the petitioners had been involved falsely in the case and that they had already paid the bill. The petitioners had also produced in defence Exh.D.D., a bill for payment of electricity charges which amounted to Rs,156.75. This bill was issued on 29-4-1983. No last date for payment of the bill has been mentioned in the column specified.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that on the alleged day of occurrence the petitioners were not in arrears and that the bill Exh.D.D. Issued to them on 29-4-1983 was against a reading of 11323, and it amounted to Rs,156.75. He has submitted that even if the report Exh.D.A. On the application Exh.D.B. Of Muhammad Tufail petitioner, is taken into account, it is clear that the S.D.O. Had made a report that the outstanding bill against the petitioners was Rs,435.03 which has been paid. This report was recorded on 25-5-483.
' Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that even if it be granted for the sake of argument, that Muhammad Yunas and Maqsood Ahmad Linemen had gone to the spot, equipped with the Equipment Removal Order, their presence at the tube-well of the petitioners was without authority, as the outstanding amount mentioned in the E.R.O. Was not the amount which actually the petitioners owed to the department.
' Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to the discrepancy in the statement of the witnesses, wherein, Muhammad Aslam is named having accompanied Maqsood Ahmad instead of Muhammad Yunas.
' Lastly, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the recovery of E.R.O. From the person of Abdul Hamid petitioner, is fake. He pointed out that on the alleged day of recovery Abdul Hamid petitioner was on bail, he was never arrested and was allowed bail before arrest, and so the statement of Abdul Hamid P.W.5 that the recovery was effected when Abdul Hamid petitioner was in police custody, in handcuffs, is absolutely false.
7. Learned counsel for the State has conceded that there is nothing on the record to show that any bill amounting to Rs,4,466.16 due from the petitioners, was ever issued. He has also not been able to explain the contradiction in report Exh.D.A. And the bill Exh.D.D. About the reading.
' The query remained un-answered that if the reading on 29-4-1983 was 11323, how the bill was received from the petitioners against a reading of 11532 before 23-5-1983 as reported by the S.D.O.
8 I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. As noted above, the discrepancy in the bill issued and non-production of the bill amounting to Rs,4,466.16 is something which has remained unexplained, and so casts doubts on the prosecution case. On the other hand, the bill Exh.D.D. Does not show that t were were any arrears.
The bill only showed the current outstanding amount of Rs,156.75 even if the petitioners had to be billed with Rs,435.03 as reported by the S.D.O. In the application submitted by one of the petitioners, it does not tally with the amount mentioned in the Equipment Removal Order. Moreover, the report also does not disclose as to whether this amount was due before the issuance of the E.R.O. The record also does not show as to whether any bill Was issued to. The petitioners for payment of a sum of Rs,435.03.
' The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that on the alleged day of recovery of E.R.O.
Abdul Hamid petitioner was on bail and that the statement of Abdul Hamid Assistant Lineman P.W.5 is false, has also not been refuted by learned counsel for the State. In fact, it is mentioned in the recovery memo. That Abdul Hamid petitioner had produced the E.R.O. There is no mention that he was under arrest. In the circumstances, the evidence produced on this account is not of the nature of a conclusive proof of the E.R.O. Having been recovered from Abdul Hamid petitioner.
' In view of the above-noted facts, doubts have arisen in my mind regarding the prosecution case as so many things have remained unexplained and the prosecution has not been able to discharge its onerous duty of proving the case against the petitioners beyond reasonable shadows of doubt. The revision petition is, therefore, accepted and the petitioners are acquitted of the charge by giving benefit of doubt.