P (PLP)

R. K. M. SAKER, J. C.-This is a revision petition under provisions of sections 435 and 439, Criminal Procedure Code, against the order of the Sessions Judge in Baluchistan, dated 22nd February 1951, whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred by the convict-petitioner who had been convicted under the pro visions of sections 379/75, Pakistan Penal Code, by a Magistrate who sentenced him to undergo one and a half years' rigorous im prisonment. In the first place, I observe that this revision-petition has been presented on 9th June 1951 while the order of the Sessions judge was dated .22nd February 1951. The revision has, there fore, been presented approximately four and a half months after the order of the Appellate Court. While no limitation is laid down for the presentation of revision-petitions it has been general rule of practice that such petitions should be submitted to this Revisional Court within 60 days of the passing of the order of the lower Court unless there are unusual or exceptional circumstances. In the case before me no exceptional circum stances have been urged nor are any such circumstances apparent from the record. This rule of practice is also followed almost entirely by other High Courts where a principle has been evolved that unless there are sound reasons for the delay in submitting revision-petitions the Revisional Court will exercise its discretion against interference. Moreover, the admission or non -admission of an application for revision is a matter entirely within the discretion of the Revisional Court; and if an application for revision is made after unreasonable delay that alone can be a sufficient ground to reject the application. I would be reluctant to depart from the accepted principle of this Court that the normal period within which a revision petition should be presented is' 60 days and I would normally not be prepared to consider the entertainment of a revision-petition presented after this period unless good and sufficient reason is shown for the delay in submission. I would not, however, arbitrarily dismiss this revision-peti tion on grounds of delay in submission alone and will proceed to examine the case at large. The circumstances of this case are very simple and I observe there is a concurrent finding on facts of two lower Courts. It is a generally accepted principle that a Court exercising revisional powers will be slow to disturb a finding of fact; particularly when there are two concurrent findings of lower Courts. In the light of this second principle I can find nothing in the case before me which would warrant interference by this Court. The only possible argument, which has, been submitted, is that since the convict-petitioner did not remove the cycle from the possession of another person the conviction under section 379, Pakistan Penal Code cannot be sustained. In examining the provisions of section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code. I observe that the word ` possession ' is nowhere defined in the Pakistan Penal Code and each case must therefore be dealt with on its merits. The facts of this case indicate that the owner of the cycle left it outside a mosque while he was saying his prayers and that the cycle was removed. . It would, in my view, be a most dangerous principle if I were to hold that the dishonest removal of a cycle or any other movable property such as a motor-car, which the owner had left for a short period in some public or semi-public place, did not constitute the offence of theft. The word `possession' must be interpreted in its broader sense ; and apart from physical possession must also mean the ownership of, and control over, the movable property concerned; Undoubtedly in the case before me the cycle in question was: still possessed by its owner even though he may, for a short period, have placed it in a public place from where it was re moved. As for the rest of the case, I am fully satisfied that the two, lower Courts have carefully weighed the evidence; and since no question of law is involved I consider that it would be improper for me to disturb the finding of fact of the lower Courts. No injustice has been done and I am not prepared to substitute my own view of the facts for those held by the two lower Courts. In the light of these remarks I decline to exercise my powers of revision and the petition is accordingly dismissed. Reverting once more to the question of limitation I wish to restate that this Court will be reluctant to accept or entertain revision petitions unless they are filed within 60 days of the order complained of. If there are, however, exceptional circumstance which can account for the delay in the submission of revision peti tions they should be stated when the petition is presented and &o consideration will be given to them. A.H. Petition dismissed.