' This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment dated 13-9-1992 passed by Mian Abdul Latif, Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh, whereby criminal appeal of the petitioners was partly accepted and their conviction passed by the Resident Magistrate, Pir Mahal, District Toba Tek Singh dated 29-11-1990 was reduced from 2 years' R.I. to 1 year R.I. each with the additional benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Briefly the prosecution case is that P.W.2 complainant Moharam Khan lodged a complaint Exh. PB on 10-4-1989 that he was resident of Mohallah Paglanwala, Kamalia and on the night between 17/18-3-1989 he had parked his motor-cycle bearing No,TS/8093 Honda 70 CC, P.I. in front of his house and went inside and after some time when he returned, he found his motor-cycle missing.
He suspected that the same had been stolen. The complainant had been searching for his motor- cycle, but could not find any clue. After receipt of an information that the police had recovered motor cycle from the accused/petitioners, he went to the Police Station Pir Mahal and found his motor-cycle there. He identified the same and thereafter lodged complaint Exh.PB, on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Exh.PB/1 was recorded.
3. The prosecution examined 6 P.Ws. in all the substantiate its case. P.W.1 has stated that on the disclosure made by the accused/petitioners the police secured motor-cycle P.1 vide memo. Exh.PA.
P.W.2 Moharam Khan narrated the facts mentioned by him in the complaint Exh.PB. P.W.3 Muhammad It,' identified the motor-cycle P.1 of complainant P.W.2. P.W.4 also identified the motor- cycle P.1 P.W.5 Muhammad Aslam, A.S.I. had investigated the case and had recovered motor-cycle at the instance of the petitioners and secured the same under section 550, Cr.P.C. vide memo.
Exh.PA. P.W.6 Khan Amir Khan, A.S.I. has stated that the petitioners while on personal remand during interrogation had made a disclosure that they 'had stolen motor-cycle P.1 and got recovered the same, which was secured by the police.
4. The petitioners when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution evidence and the recovery of motor-cycle, and had stated that they had been involved due to enmity.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned State counsel, and have perused the record. The motor-cycle P.1 was allegedly stolen on the night between 17/18-3-1989 whereby formal F.I.R. Exh.PB/1 was recorded on the basis of complaint Exh. PB drafted on 10-4-1989.
The recovery of motor-cycle P.1 had preceded to the recording of F.I.R. Exh.PB/1. ' It has been stated by P.W.1 Waryam Khan that he joined the investigation of the present case and the S.H.O. had secured motor cycle vide memo Exh.PA on the joint disclosure and pointation of the petitioners from the Old Brick Kiln. P.W.5 Muhammad Aslam S.I. has stated during cross-examination that he had arrested the petitioners under section 54, Cr.P.C. and motor-cycle P.1 had been secured under section 550, Cr.P.C. on the petitioners' joint disclosure and pointation from the Old Brick Kiln by P.W.3 vide memo Exh.PA. P.W.6 Khan Amir Khan S.I. also stated that the petitioners during interrogation had made joint disclosure about the presence of motor-cycle at Old Brick Kiln which was secured by P.W.5 on their joint pointation and disclosure. At the time of cross-examination P.W.1 Waryam Khan stated that motor-cycle P.1 was not present in the Court. The petitioners when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. had denied the prosecution evidence against them and had also made statements on oath as envisaged under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. that they were arrested simultaneously by the police and case property P.1 was not recovered at their instance. It has been brought on the file that the case property was recovered on the joint disclosure and pointation of the accused petitioners.
6. Pursant to the above discussion, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond doubt. Extending the benefit of doubt to the petitioners, I acquit them of the charge.
The petitioners are in jail, they shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
Revision .