1. Petitioner, Maqsood Ahmed Akhtar alias Sooda, was tried by Magistrate First Class, Lahore, for an offence under section 457/380, P.P.C. The trial Magistrate vide his judgment, dated 5-7-1984, convicted and sentenced him to 2 years' R.I. Under section 411, P.P.C. Convict appealed. Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, vide his judgment dated 4-9-1984, dismissed the appeal. In the present revision the petitioner challenges the judgments of both the Courts below.
2. The case was heard with the assistance of learned counsel for the State in the absence of learned counsel for the petitioner because he failed to appear.
3. The prosecution had produced five witnesses in support of its case. P.W.1, Riasat Ali, had got the case registered. According to him, between the night of 26/27-8-1982, when he got up and found that a window of his house was broken and some unknown persons had committed theft of one Tape-Recorder alongwith five cassettes yet he got the case registered on 7-9-1982. In cross--- examination he stated that he had got the case registered on the day theft was committed. P.W.2 Abdul Majid, had witnessed the identification of articles recovered from the petitioner. P.W.3, Muhammad Ashfaque, had witnessed the recovery of stolen articles at the instance of the petitioner. In examination-in---chief he stated that on 18-9-1982, at 9-30 p.m. He was going towards his house when in his presence the police took into possession one Tape-recorder P.1, watch P.2 and ring P.3 from the petitioner vide memo. Exh. P.C., which he signed. In cross- examination he stated that he was neither informed about the contents of the memo. Nor he had read it and the recovery memo. Was prepared in the police station. He was not even aware who had signed the said memo. Muhammad Aslam, P.W.4, stated that on 11-9-1982, he went to the police station identified the tape-recorder and signed the recovery memo. Exh. P.C. P.W.5, Umer Khan Niazi, S.1., was the Investigating Officer. I have noticed that there is no witness who has involved the petitioner to the extent that the stolen articles were recovered from his possession.
4. P.Ws. 3 and 4 have contradicted each other. Muhammad Ashfaque had ruled out the presence of Muhammad Aslam the other witness who had signed the recovery memo. They also contradicted each other because according to Muhammad Ashfaque, recovery memo. Was prepared at the spot. According to the other witness it was prepared in the police station. I have noticed that there was a delay of more than 'ten days in the registration of the case for which no explanation whatsoever was furnished by the complainant. After perusal of the evidence, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, I accept the petition and set aside his conviction. The petitioner is on bail. His bail bond shall stand discharged.