Tauseef Ahmad son of Munir Ahmad was tried in a theft case. By judgment dated 25-1-1987 Resident Magistrate, Rabwah convicted him under section 411, P.P.C. And sentenced him to undergo R.I. For one year. He preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang on 31-3-1987. Instead of sending him to prison the learned Appellate Court placed him on probation for a period of one year under section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960.
Hence this revision.
2. The prosecution case is that two rods of drill machine belonging to Manzoor Ahmad complainant were stolen. The complainant carried out a search privately and on a suspicion against the petitioner contacted him who after some prevarication returned the same to the complainant. The latter reported the matter to the police on the following day.
3. At the trial, the "prosecution examined three witnesses, Amjad Javaid P.W.1 and Manzoor P.W.2 were examined to prove the theft and recovery of the stolen rods at the instance of the petitioner.
Amjad Javaid did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile.
4. The petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge and was accordingly convicted and sentenced as described above.
5. It is stated that the alleged confession was obtained by inducement. The petitioner was told that he would be let of because excepting the complainant there was no other evidence against him.
6. No report of theft was lodged by the complainant before the alleged recovery. The rods were allegedly produced by the petitioner on 28-9-19841 whereas the matter was reported to the police on the following day. There is no explanation for not reporting the matter to the police soon after the theft in question. Amjad Javaid P.W. In whose presence the petitioner had returned the rods did not support the prosecution. He denied any knowledge about the case. The only evidence against the petitioner is of Manzoor Ahmad complainant. He does not appear to be a truthful witness because according to his own admission the petitioner had left his service. There is absolutely no corroboration of his testimony. In these circumstances there appear to be no reason for the petitioner to have confessed his guilt.