1991 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AKRAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKRAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-- |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-- as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AKRAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Noor Muhammad Awan for Petitioner.
- Mirza Hafeez-ur-Rehman for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th February, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 411
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 517
Accused was acquitted of the charge of possessing stolen property by Appellate Court
Accused had claimed stolen property to be his own
Order of Appellate Court, returning property to accused was neither perverse nor illegal-- Judgment of Appellate Court was well-reasoned
Interference with judgment in exercise of revisional jurisdiction was not justified in circumstances. Shahbaz Saeed Sajid for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Noor Muhammad Awan for Petitioner. Shahbaz Saeed Sajid for the State. Mirza Hafeez-ur-Rehman for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th February, 1991. Muhammad Akram petitioner was tried under section 380/457/411, P.P.C. on the charge of theft of different articles from the house of Rab Nawaz petitioner/complainant. He was convicted under section 411, P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for the period he remained in jail as an under-trial prisoner i.e. 1-1/2 years. The trial Court directed that the stolen property be returned to the complainant/owner. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed appeal which was entrusted to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, who vide his judgment, dated 4-4-1983 set aside the conviction and sentence of the respondents and directed that the stolen property may be returned to him, hence this revision by the complainant.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although respondent No.l was acquitted of the charge of theft yet there was no justification to return the stolen property to him. Learned counsel for the State has opposed him.
3. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that respondent/accused had claimed the alleged stolen property, as his own property. He was acquitted of the charge. Therefore, it was quite legal and in the fitness of things that the property recovered from him by the police should have been returned to him. The order of the appellate Court is neither perverse nor illegal. Pursuant to the above discussion, I do not see any justification to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the Appellate Court. So, the revision is dismissed. SA./M-2960/L Revision dismissed.