MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHANJ- Muhammad Panah petitioner and Waryam, acquitted accused were tried under sections 379/411 P.P.C, for theft of a bullock and dishonestly keeping the same knowing the same as stolen property. They denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
2. To prove its case prosecution produced 5 witnesses, namely Asghar Ali P.W.1, Asif P.W.2, Fazil P.W.3, Ghulam Muhammad, S.L, P.W.4 and Ghulam Abbas Inspector P.W.5. The first three witnesses stated that the bullock was stolen from the house of Fazil P.W.3 about 10 days before the FIR and before the case could be registered, the same was restored by the petitioner to the owner. When examined under section 342 Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied the incriminating circumstances. He produced two D.Ws in defence. On 30.9.1989, the trial court acquitted Waryam and convicted the petitioner under section 411 P.P.C. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh, on 9.1.1990, hence this revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a delay of 10 days in lodging the FIR; that the bullock was not recovered by the police on the pointation of the petitioner and that the co- accused against whom the evidence is of identical nature, has been acquitted of the charge. No one has appeared for the State.
4. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that no case of theft was got registered by the complainant before the alleged recovery. The allegation that the bullock was stolen and was restored by the petitioner or anybody else to the owner before the registration of the case was very easy to concoct but very difficult to rebut. In view of the delay in lodging the FIR and the circumstances that the bullcck was returned by the petitioner to the owner without getting any benefit or gratification, I feel that it would not be safe to maintain conviction and it is doubtful as to whether or not the petitioner was keeping bullock dishonestly knowing the same to be stolen one.
For what has been said above, the revision is accepted. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set-aside and he is acquitted of the charge.