' The petitioner, as per report of Assistant Commissioner, Okara, to whom the warrants of arrest were sent for execution, had joined Army and is nowadays posted in some Unit at Quetta. His counsel also has not turned up. In these circumstances his revision petition is being disposed of in his absence with the assistance of learned State counsel.
2. The petitioner was tried by Mr. Akram Khan, Magistrate 1st Class, Okara, on the charge of having been found in possession of stolen cycle belonging to Muhammad Sharif with whom he was serving as a private servant and ultimately vide his judgment, dated 31-7-1975, he was convicted under section 411, P.P.C. And sentenced, to one year's R.I. On appeal he failed before the Sessions Court and he came up in revision.
3. On the commencement of trial and repudiation of the charge by the petitioner framed against him under section 411, P.P.C. The prosecution produced as many as 5 witnesses, namely, Muhammad Sharif (P.W.1), Agha Faiz Muhammad S.H.O. (P.W.2), H.C. Muhammad Yousaf (P.W.3), Waryam (P.W.4) and Yaroo (P.W.5). To be a little more precise, Muhammad Sharif complainant (P.W.1) stated that the petitioner was his private servant and he had sent him to purchase chickens from the market but he decamped with a cycle and a licensed revolver and did not return. After some time he lodged the report with the police. During the investigation the stolen cycle (P.1) was recovered by Agha Faiz Muhammad S.I./S.H.O. (P.W.3) in the presence of Waryam (P.W.4) and Yaroo (P.W.5) at the instance of the appellant. The recovery of the stolen cycle was proved by the recovery witnesses.
4. The petitioner, while examined, took up the position that Muhammad Sharif complainant, whom he was serving as a private servant, was to pay him Rs,1,000 as arrears of his pay/wages which he refused to pay and when he demanded the payment he got him falsely implicated in this case. He produced no defence.
5. After hearing the learned State counsel and perusing the record with his assistance, I have come to the conclusion that the petitioner, due to some annoyance with his employer, may be his refusal to pay him the arrears of wages, pinched away his cycle from his house in a village in District Lyallpur, the recovery whereof was effected from the village of the petitioner in District Sahiwal. In these circumstances the prosecution seems to have proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and he was rightly convicted under section 411, P.P.C. As regards his sentence, due to the long pendency of his appeal and lapse of sufficient period, lenient view is taken and where his B conviction is maintained, his sentence is reduced to the one already undergone by him.