Ghulam Rasul and, 2 others, petitioners, were tried under sections 447 and 379, P.P.C. By Assistant, Commissioner, Mankera.
2. The allegations were that on the eventful day, they dishonestly removed the Gowara crop of Muhammad Afzal P.W. And when they were asked to return the same, they threatened them with dire consequences. The case was initially registered under section 379, P.P.C. But section 447, P.P.C.
Was added subsequently. ,
3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced 8 witnesses Jahangir Khan P.W.1, Ghulam Muhammad Khan, P.W.2, and Muhammad Azhar Khan P.W.3, are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. They stated that the petitioners had removed the Gowara crop of the complainant.
The rest of the evidence is of formal nature. The trial Court convicted the petitioners under section 379, P.P.C. And sentenced them to two years' R.I. And two months' R.I. Under section 447, P.P.C. With the directions that the sentences shall run concurrently. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge, Bhakkar, acquitted the petitioners of the charge under section 447, P.P.C. He reduced the sentence from two years to one year's R.I. No one has appeared for the, parties. Since revision after having been admitted cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution, so I have examined the case myself. I find that there was civil dispute between the parties with regard to the land and also to the entitlement of the Gowara crops cultivated thereon. According to the prosecution case, the land was allotted to them on temporary cultivation in the years 1979 and 1980 the occurrence took place on 3-2-1980. It has been stated in the F.I.R.:-- From the trend of the statement made by Ghulam Muhammad, P.W.2, it appears to me that the petitioners were tenants over the land when the same was allotted to the complainant party for temporary cultivation and as such the petitioners were the bona fide claimant of the Gowara crops. So, no case of theft against them under section 379, P.P.C. Is made out. In para. 3 of the judgment the learned Assistant Commissioner has stated that "the case was initially registered under section 379, P.P.C. Later on Raja Ghulam Jillani, A.S.I., forwarded a written letter to his officer stated that the documents of the Revenue field staff show the possession of the complainant and his companions to prove that they were cultivating the Gowara crop but the actual position is that the accused persons aforementioned were in physical possession of the land at the time of the investigation". This being the position, I feel that the conviction of the petitioners under section 379, P.P.C. Cannot be sustained.
4. For what has been stated above, this revision is accepted and petitioners are acquitted of the charge. They are on bail. They stand discharge of the bail bonds.