1994 P Cr (PLP)

Date of hearing: 29th March, 1994. The petitioners by way of this criminal revision have assailed the impugned judgment, dated 19-2-1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala whereby the petitioners were convicted and sentenced under section 379, P.P.C. to six months' R.I. each and fine of Rs.1,000 each in default whereof to suffer further 2 months' R.I. each by the trial Court. They were also extended the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioners were challaned by the police of Police Station City Kamoke, District Gujranwala vide case F.I.R. No.62/92 registered on 15-4 1992 at 4 p.m. on the complaint of Haji Muhammad Siddiq P.W.3. The allegations against the petitioners were that they visited the shop of the complainant for the purchase of cloth and stole three Silld pieces of cloth/Japanese suits and other pieces of cloth valuing Rs.1,

050. The petitioners thereafter went out of the shop but were apprehended and the present case had been registered.

3. The petitioners were challaned and sent up for trial. Charge under section 379/411, P.P.C. was framed to which they denied and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution examined 4 P.Ws. in all to substantiate its case. P.W.1 Bashir Ahmad, A.S.I., had drafted F.I.R. Exh.P.A./1 and had also secured the stolen property vide memo. Exh.P.B. P.W.2 Muhammad Saleem son of Ghulam Muhammad had not supported the prosecution version and was declared hostile. He was recovery witness. P.W.3 Haji Muhammad Siddiq narrated the facts mentioned by him in his statement Exh.PA. on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A./1 was recorded. P.W.4 Muhammad Salim son of Alam Din, eye-witness, had stated that the petitioners had been apprehended by him and handed over to the complainant, who took them to the police station.

5. The petitioners when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution evidence against them and had produced D.W.1 Muhammad Sadiq D.W.2 Muhammad Shafiq who stated about innocence of the petitioners.

6. The learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence on record had convicted and sentenced the petitioners vide its impugned judgment dated 23-8-1993. The petitioners filed criminal appeal against their conviction and sentence which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide its impugned judgment, dated 19-2-1994.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The case property was neither produced in the Court nor exhibited at the time of examination of the P.Ws. The petitioners were not asked to appear as their own witnesses in defence as envisaged under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. The recovery witness Muhammad Saleem was declared hostile whereas Muhammad Afzal was given up.

8. Pursuant to the above discussion I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond doubt against the petitioners and giving them the benefit of dou0t I acquit the petitioners of the charge. The petitioners are in jail. They shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. N.H.Q./M-1661/L Revision petition accepted.