' This criminal revision has been directed against the order dated 13-9-1992 passed by Mian Abdul Latif, Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh, whereby he reduced the sentences of the petitioners from 2 years to 1 year R.I each initially awarded to them under section 411, P.P.C. by the Resident Magistrate, Peer Mahal vide his order dated 29-11-1990.
2. Briefly the prosecution case is that on 3-4-1989 the complainant P.W.2 Zahoor Ahmad made a complaint Exh. PB to the effect that he was running an Auto Store at Lari Adda in Town Kamalia. On 1-4-1989 at about evening time he had parked his motor-cycle Yamaha 80-CC Registration No, KCD-8238 Model 1986 Exh. P.1 in front of his shop and went inside. After sometime he came out and found his motor-cycle P.1 missing. He suspected theft of the motor-cycle and searched for the same. On 3-4-1989 the complainant came to know that his motor-cycle P.1 had been recovered by the police of Peer Mahal, where he went and identified his motor-cycle alongwith one Munir Ahmad. P.W. 5 Khan An Khan, ASI of police post Octroi, Kamalia Road, Peer Mahal recorded complaint Exh.PB and sent the same to the police station, where P.W.1 Muhammad Asghar Moharrir scribed the formal F.I.R. 'Exh. PA. The petitioners were challaned and sent up for trial. Charge under section 411, P.P.C. was framed against the petitioners to which they denied and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution examined 5 witnesses in all to substantiate its case. P.W.1 Muhammad Asghar had registered the formal F.I.R. Exh. PA. P.W. 2 Zahoor Ahmad is the complainant who narrated the facts stated by him in Exh. PB. P.W.3 Shaukat Ali, Head Constable had stated that on 2-4-1989 at about 11-30 p.m (night) when he was on patrol duty along with the police officials, the petitioners while coming on a motor-cycle were stopped and as they could not produce any document of their ownership, the same was taken into possession under section 550, Cr.P.C. from the petitioners.
P.W.4 Amir Muhammad, Constable corroborated the statement of P.W.3. P.W.5 Khan Amir Khan is the Investigating Officer who had taken ino possession motor cycle P.1 on 2-4-1989 from the petitioners when they reached riding the same near Railway Phatak Peer Mahal and were suspected as they could not produce any document of ownership. He also drafted the complaint Exh. PB on the statement of P.W.2 Zahoor Ahmad. The petitioners when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution evidence and also recovery of motor-cycle P.1 from their possession and control and claimed trial. The petitioners also made statements under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. on oath and each of them stated that they were innocent and had been involved falsely in the present case.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The motor-cycle P.1 was stolen on 1-4-1989 and secured by P.W.5 Khan Amir Khan vide memo Exh. PC on 2-4-1989.
Thereafter the F.I.R. Exh. PA was recorded on the basis of the complaint made by the complainant P.W.2 on 3-4-1989. The recovery of motor-cycle P.1 was preceded registration of the case. The complainant has not given any plausible explanation of not lodging the F.I.R. immediately about the theft of motor-cycle. Taking the facts, evidence and the law on the point into consideration, I am of the view that the case against the petitioners is not fully proved and is not free from doubt.
Giving the petitioners benefit of doubt. I acquit them of the charge. They shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Revision .