Muhammad Aslam and Ghulam Raza Shah, petitioners, were tried under section 382/411 of the P.P.C. On the charge of forcibly removing the mare of Ghulam Hussain P.W.1 and retaining the same knowing the same as stolen property. On the conclusion of the trial, Muhammad Aslam and Ghulam Hussain, both were convicted under section 382/411 of the P.P.C. And sentenced to three years' R.I. Each. The appeal filed by them was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, on 21-4-1982, hence this revision.
2. The revision to the extent of Ghulam Raza Shah petitioner was dismissed,, by this Court at pre- admission stage. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conviction and sentence awarded to Muhammad Aslam petitioner on its face is illegal inasmuch as either he could be convicted under section 382 of P.P.C. As a thief or he could be convicted under section 411 of the P.P.C. As a retainer of the stolen property as it was/is not possible under the law to convict a thief for retaining the property, which he himself had stolen. Furthermore, the trial Court should have awarded separate sentences under two sections of the P.P.C. One sentence under two sections of the P.P.C. Was/is not permissible under law. The learned counsel for, the State is not in a position to controvert him.
3. I have considered the matter carefully. 1 feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. There can be no two opinions that Muhammad Aslam could not have been convicted as a thief as well as retainer of the same stolen property under section 382/411 of the P.P.C.
Furthermore, he could not be awarded single sentence in two offences under P.P.C.
4. Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision is accepted. The conviction and sentence of Muhammad Aslam petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail. He stands