' Munir Ahmad son of Ghulam Rasul petitioner faced trial for the charge under section 411, P.P.C. before the Magistrate 1st Class, Mianwali who vide judgment, dated 30-6-1991 convicted and sentenced the petitioner to two years' R.I. His conviction and sentence was maintained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali in appeal vide judgment, dated 13-8-1991.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 20-1-1991 at 2-30 p.m. the petitioner was apprehended by the Railway police party on patrol duty and found six brake blocks, six fish plates, three caughter pins, one couplin pin, two groove washers and four pen pins, property of the Railway in possession of the petitioner which was recovered from him and a case was registered against him. Safdar Ali Head Constable P.W.1 and Asghar Ali Constable P.W.2 proved the recovery of the property in question from the possession of the petitioner. Yar Muhammad an employee of the Railway stated that the recovered property belonged to the Railway Department. However, he stated that according to the record no theft of the Railway property was committed.
3. The petitioner denied the allegations and pleaded false implication. He produced Muhammad Iqbal in his defence who deposed that the petitioner was caught by the police for crossing the Railway line and demanded bribe from him but the petitioner refused to accept the demand of the police officials and as a result thereof the petitioner was involved in the case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under section 411, P.P.C. are that the property must be stolen and the person having the possession must have dishonestly received the same with the knowledge that it was a stolen property, in absence of which offence under section 411, P.P.C. is not made out and the conviction and sentence is not sustainable. Reliance has been placed on Sakhawat Ali v. The State 1990 M LD 186.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the recovered property admittedly belonged to Railway Department and, therefore, the petitioner has no explanation for the possession of the same at the relevant time.
6. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State and perused the record carefully. It is correct that to prove the case under section 411, P.P.C. the prosecution must not only prove that the property was stolen but it must also establish that the person charged had knowledge about the stolen property or knew the property to be stolen or had reasonable grounds for believing the same to have been stolen. The knowledge of the accused with regard to the stolen property is essential element to constitute the offence under section 411, P.P.C. It is correct that the possession simpliciter of a stolen property is no offence but in case of recent possession the presumption shall be that the person found in possession of the stolen property is thief and has received the goods knowing them to be stolen unless he can account for its possession.
7. Admittedly the property is of special nature which is not available in the market and is not used generally, and, therefore, the petitioner could not explain his possession over the property at the relevant time. The presumption, therefore, would be that it is a stolen property and the petitioner had the possession of the same with the conscious knowledge of its being stolen. The facts of the case sufficiently established the charge against the petitioner. The case relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner having different facts cannot be made applicable to the present case.
8. For the foregoing reasons, I see no force in this revision petition which is dismissed. The petitioner is on bail. He shall be taken into custody to serve out the remaining portion of sentence.