' The facts giving rise to this revision briefly are that on the night between 1/2-12-1981, Masood Tariq S.I., P.W. 4 alongwith Abdul Haq P.W.2 and Muhammad Saleem P.W.3 were holding Nakabandi at Chowk Mehrpur. They apprehended Ghulam Fareed petitioner alongwith a bullock. Since the petitioner could not satisfactorily prove his ownership of the bullock, so the same was seized under section 550, Cr.P.C. As suspected stolen property. On the following day Murad Ali came to the police station and identified the bullock as stolen one. So a case under section 411, P.P.C. Was registered on his report at 2-00 p.m. On 2-12-1981.
2. To prove its case, prosecution produced 4 witnesses. Murad Ali P.W.1 stated that the bullock was stolen from his house on the night between 1/2-12-1981 and he subsequently identified the same in the police station and lodged report Exh.P.A. Abdul Haq P.W.2 and Muhammad Salcem P.W.3 supported the prosecution case. They stated that the bullock was recovered from the possession of the petitioner at the time of Nakabandi. Masood Tariq, S.I. P.W.4 also supported the recovery of bullock from the petitioner.
3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied the incriminating circumstances.
He did not produce any witness in defence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since Murad Ali had not identified his stolen bullock in the Court, therefore, it cannot be said that the bullock, which was recovered during Nakabandi by the police was of Murad Ali complainant. No one has appeared for the State to oppose this revision.
5. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that at time of their evidence neither Murad Ali complainant nor the recovery witnesses had identified the bullock which was allegedly stolen or recovered during Nakabandi and as such, it cannot be said that the bullock which was seized during Nakabandi under section 550, Cr.P.C. Was the one which was stolen from the house of Murad Ali complainant. That being the position, it cannot be said that the prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt of the petitioner punishable under section 411, P.P.C.
' Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision is accepted and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail. He stands discharged of the B bail bonds.