The petitioner in Criminal Revision No.41 of 1934 and Tariq Mahmood, petitioner, in Criminal Revision No.53 of 1984 were tried under section 411, P.P.C. On the charge of keeping stolen uniforms of I.M.T.
(Tractor Factory). They denied the charge and claimed to be tried. I propose to dispose of them through this single judgment.
2. To prove its case, the prosecution produced three witnesses, namely, Akbar Hayat P.W.1, Azhar Mahmood P.W.2 and Muhammad Sharif A.S.I. P.W.3. The F.I.R. Was registered on the report of Major Jamil Qadir Khan (not produced). On the direction of Azhar Mahmood P.W.2, Akbar Hayat Security Officer (P.W.1) clicked the employees of the Factory. He recovered one uniform from Tariq Mahmood petitioner who stated that the same was given to him by Muhammad Younas co- accused/petitioner. Thereafter the second uniform was recovered from the tractor of Muhammad Younas in his absence. Akbar Hayat and Hayat Muhammad supported the prosecution case. The trial Court convicted the petitioners under section 411, P.P.C. And sentenced them to three months'
R.1. The appeal tiled by them was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore on 24-1-1984.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the maker of the F.I.R. Was not produced; that the stolen uniform was not produced at the time of trial: that Tariq Mahmood had reasonably explained the position of the uniform and that the second uniform was recovered from the physical possession of Muhammad Younas petitioner.
4. No one has appeared for the State. I have considered the matter carefully. I agree with the learned counsel fur the petitioners. I find that at the time of recovery, Tariq Mahmood had told the Security officer that the uniform was given to him by Muhammad Younas; that the second uniform was recovered from the Tractor in the absence of Muhammad Younas and, as such, it cannot be said that the uniform was recovered from his physical possession. Furthermore, the uniform was not produced in the Court at the time of evidence. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove that the petitioners were keeping the uniforms dishonestly knowing the same to be stolen more particularly when no witness of the theft of the uniform was produced and the maker of the F.I.R. Was given up by the prosecution.
5. Pursuant to the above discussion, the revisions are accepted. The convictions and sentences of the petitioners are set aside. They are acquitted of the charge. They are on bail. They stand discharged of their bail bond.