FAZAL KARIM, J.~ The petitioner Ahmad was tried and convicted under section 411 of the PPC by a Magistrate 1st Class, Lyallpur, by his order dated 26.1.1976 and sentenced to suffer R.I. For two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- or in defauIt to sutler S.I. For six months. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lyallpur, maintained the conviction and sentence bv his judgment dated 12.7.1977.
2. At 11 a.m. On 15.11.1971, Sardar Muhammad reported at the police station that on the night between 13/14.11.1971, four bullocks had been stolen from his place. The prosecution case is that the bullocks were recovered from the Dhari of the petitioner by Muhammad Latif S.I. (PW.4) in the presence of Faqir Muhammad and Abdul Haq P.Ws.
3. Sardar Muhammad P.W. Belonged to Chak No.84/G.B. Which was also the place of theft.
According to the FIR, which,as seen above, was made at 11.15 a.m. On 15.11.1971, the theft had taken place during the night between 13/14.11.1971. In the witness box, Sardar Muhammad P.W. However, said that he had reported the theft 20 or 25 days after it had taken place vide Ex.PA. Both Faqir Muhammad and Abdul Haq P.Ws., on whose testimony the prosecution case primarily rested, were the residents of different places viz. Chak No.73/(j.B. No reason was given why no body from the locality of the place of recovery was associatd with the recovery. Neither of them knew whose Dhari it was from where the bullocks were recovered. Abdul Haq P.W. Had in his cross-examination said that he could not say if the accused person in Court was Ahmad accused. He had not naturally know the petitioner before the recovery and the same must be true of the other PW. In my view, the statement of Sardar Muhammad P.W. That the bullocks were found 20 or 25 days after the theft, while according to the memo of recovery, they were recovered on 23.1.1972 coupled with the fact that Faqir Muhammad and Abdul Haq P.Ws, were not the residents of that locality must be hold to have the effect of rendering the case against the petitioner doubtful. I would, therefor, accept the revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and acquit him. He shall stand discharged of his bail bonds.