MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.- Khizar Hayat petitioner was tried separately in two cases under section 411 PPC on the charge of keeping the stolen mares, which were allegedly recovered from him by Haq Nawaz AS1 on 13-5-1980. The trial Court convicted them in both the cases and sentenced him to one year's R.1, in each case. Feeling aggrieved, he filed two separate appeals, which were dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, on 2-10-1982.1 propose to dispose ol these two revisions through this single judgment.
2. No one has appeared for the petitioner. Since the revision, after having been admitted, cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution, so I have examined the. Case with the,assislante of the learned counsel for the State. I find that in these cases, it was during a Nakabandi that Haq Nawaz AS1 recovered two mares from the petitioner as suspected stolen property under Section 550 of Cr.P.C, ln a case giving rise Cr.R. No.627 of 1982, Bashir Ahjad PW approached the police after some days of the alleged recovery and slated that one year back, his marc was stolen. He identified one of the two mares allegedly recovered from the petitioner as his mare, ln a case giving rise Cr.R. No.628 of 1982, Gul Sher F>W appeared before the police and slated that five months back, his mare was stolen from his house. He identified the other mare allegedly recovered from the petitioner as his stolen mare. Furthermore, no person from the public was produced to prove the recovery of mares from the petitioner. Since no case with regard to the theft of the mares, which allegedly were recovered from the petitioner on 13-5-1980, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was keeping the two mares dishonestly-knowing the same to be stolen property.
3. Pursuant to the above discussion, the revisions are accepted and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside. He is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail. He stands discharged of his bail bonds.