' The facts leading to the filing of this revision are that petitioners were tried by Magistrate First Class, Lahore, for an offence under section 392/411, P.P.C. The learned Magistrate vide his judgment, dated 22-5-1993, convicted and sentenced Bashir Ahmed, petitioner under section 392/411, P.P.C. To three years' R.I. Muhammad Abbas petitioner was found guilty under section 392, P.P.C. And sentenced to three years' R.I. Both the convicts appealed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, vide his judgment, dated 12-7-1993 dismissed the appeal. However, both the convicts were given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. In the present revision petitioners assail their convictions and sentences recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court.
' Learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset submitted that in the instant case allegation against the petitioners was that they were alleged to have snatched a brief-case from the hand of the first informant Muhammad Tahir when he alongwith his elder brother Muhammad Afzal was going to sit in their Suzuki van. Informs that in the F.I.R. It was further asserted that the complainant and his brother raised alarm whereupon a police party consisting of constables came there and apprehended Bashir Ahmed petitioner at the spot. Muhammad Abbas however, managed to escape but Bashir Ahmed petitioner disclosed his name and residence. Contended that strangely enough Muhammad Afzal P.W.2, real brother of the complainant when cross-examined in Court stated that the name of Muhammad Abbas accused was learnt the following day. Contends that if this statement is accepted then obviously the F.I.R. Must have been registered on the following day and the entire proceedings were nothing but fake. Argued that the constable who appeared as P.W.3 had apprehended Bashir Ahmad, petitioner at the spot. In cross-examination he stated that he had arrested him at 6-30 in the evening whereas the complainant stated that it was 8 o'clock.
Contends that this glaring discrepancy could not be resolved. Submitted that in the light of the discrepancy the statements of the witnesses as well as the fact that F.I.R. Was registered on the following day would render the case extremely doubtful. Contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State.
2. I have heard the learned- counsel at length and gone through the evidence with his assistance.
Muhammad Afzal, P.W.2 did state that the name of co-accused Muhammad Abbas was learnt on the next day of the occurrence yet he is found mentioned in the F.I.R. It is prosecution case that Muhammad Afzal P.W. Was present at the spot and throughout associated with the investigation.
Complainant Muhammad Tahir stated that the occurrence took place at 8 p.m. When the petitioners snatched his brief-case from him and were apprehended by the police party. The constable who arrested him at the spot stated that he had arrested him at 6-30 p.m.; this also creates doubt. I have noticed that the recovery of the brief-case is doubtful because it has been written in one ink and the particulars of the witness are given in different ink. It could understandable if the signatures alone were in different ink but why the particulars were in different ink. This also creates a serious doubt.
3. For what has been discussed above, I feel the prosecution case is not free from doubt. Therefore, while accepting the revision, I set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioners. They shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Revision is disposed of.
Revision .