' Muhabbat alias Mumi along with Thiraj and Akbar were tried under section 411, P. P. C. By the Magistrate Ist Class, Lyallpur, who vide his judgment dated 30.9-1965 convicted all the three accused and sentenced them to two years' R. I. Each. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge, Lyalipur while giving Thiraj and Akbar benefit of doubt, recorded their acquittal but maintained the conviction and sentence of Muhabbat petitioner, vide his judgment dated 20th October, 1965.
Aggrieved against both these judgments, he filed a revision petition which was admitted by the order of this Court on 11th November, 1965 to look into the contention that the part of the petitioner was just following the bullock and there was nothing on the record to show that the said bullock was recovered from his possession.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Muhabbat aged 20 years and his brother Thiraj aged 25 years and his companion Akbar were found by a Nakabandi party at about 5 a.m. On 14-11.1964 with bullock which was a stolen property. According to the prosecution Thiraj was holding the rope while Akbar and Muhabbat were behind the bullock.
3. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State and have perused the record carefully with their assistance. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was really unfortunate that Thiraj who was attributed the leading role in this incident as holding the bullock from the rope, has been acquitted while Muhabbat whose part was similar to that of another accused who has also been acquitted by the learned Sssions Judge, has been convicted and sentenced.
3-A. I find that the only part attributed to Muhabbat was that he was going behind the bullock while Thiraj was holding the rope accompanied by. Akbar. If that be so, the contention of the learned counsel raised at the time of admission of this petition becomes forceful. There is nothing on the record to show that the bullock was recovered from the possession of Muhobbat. Therefore, his mere presence at the time in the company of Thiraj and Akbar would not make him guilty of the offence under section 411, P. P. C. Particularly when Akbar was attributed the same role as that of Muhabbat and was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has conceded that in view of the allegations brought on the record against Muhabbat the petitioner's conviction cannot be sustained.
4. The result is that I accept the revision petition and acquit Muhabba giving him the same benefit of doubt which was given to Akbar by the learned Sessions Judge. As the petitioner is on bail, he may be discharged of his bail bond.