MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.-Suba petitioner was tried under section 411 P.P.C, on the charge of retaining stolen cow and Vehrka of Muhammad Hussain P.W.1 He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
2. To prove its case, prosecution produced 4 witnesses. Muhammad Bakhsh complainant narrated the factum of theft of his cow and Vehrka. He further staled that after 4/5 days of the registration of the case, Suba petitioner had produced stolen cow and Vehrka before Mushtaq Ahmad, Head constable P.W.4. Allah Ditta P.W.2 and Allah Bakhsh P.W.3 stated that the petitioner had produced cow and vehrka in their presence before the police. Mushtaq Ahmad Head constables P.W.4 stated that the petitioner had produced cow and vehrka before him, which taken into possession vide a memo prepared by him.
3. When examined under section 342 Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances. He produced 2 witnesses in defence.
4. Neither the learned counsel for the petitioner nor the learned counsel for the State has entered appearance.
5. I have considered the evidence carefully. I find that it is a case of mere voluntary production of the stolen cow and vehrka of the complainant. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was keeping stolen Vehrka and cow with him dishonestly knowing the same to be stolen property. There can be no two opinions that voluntary production of stolen property by itself does not constitute offence punishable under section 411 P.P.C. To convict an accused person under section 411 P.P.C, it is very much necessary that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was retaining the stolen property dishonestly knowing the same to be stolen one.
Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision is accepted. Giving him the benefit of doubt, Suba petitioner is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail and stands discharged of the bail-bonds.