' The petitioner, Khushi was tried under section 411 of the P.P.C. And was, by his judgment of the learned Magistrate 1st Class, Hafizabad, dated 29-9-1946, convicted and sentenced to six months'
R.I. His conviction and sentence were maintained on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala's judgment, dated 7-2-1978.
2. On 8-3-1973, Ch. Abdul Aziz P.W. Reported at the police station that an electric motor had been stolen from his tubewell a month before 8-3-1973. It was the prosecution case that the electric motor was recovered from the petitioner's house on 25-3-1975 in the presence of Muhammad Hayat and Elahi Bakhsh P.Ws.
3. The petitioner denied the recovery of the electric motor from his possession.
4. Now there was no evidence that the petitioner or for that matter anybody else had been seen stealing the electric motor. And one of the essential ingredients of section 411 of the P.P.C. Is that the person charged had dishonestly received or retained any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. Here, there was no evidence that the petitioner knew or had reason to believe the electric motor to be stolen property. As the alleged recovery from the petitioner was made as long as more than two years after the theft, no presumption under section 14 of the Evidence Act; 1872, namely, that the petitioner was the thief or had received the electric motor knowing it to be stolen could be raised against the petitioner. Reference may in this behalf be made to Mukhtar Ali v. The State PLD 1971 SC 725.
5. I, therefore, accept the revision petition and set aside the conviction and sentence and acquit the petitioner. He shall stand discharged of his bail bond.