1968 P Cr (PLP)
GHULAM HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1968 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court |
| Bench Members | S. A. Rahman and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court bench comprising: S. A. Rahman and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 P Cr (PLP) (GHULAM HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Zia Mahmood Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 411‑Conviction under section-- Accused not claiming property recovered from him to be his own nor offering any explanation as to how he came into possession of that property‑Petition to Supreme Court for special leave to appeal on ground that property was not proved to be stolen --Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.‑The petitioner in this case has been convicted under section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code for being found in possession of two axles of a truck (Exhs. P. 1 and P. 2) which had been identified as axles stolen from the truck of Abdul Jalil (P. W. 1). His conviction has been upheld by the learned Sessions Judge of Jhelum on appeal and also on revision by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal and it is contended on his behalf that the conviction is not maintainable, as the axles taken from his possession have not been proved to be stolen. There is no substance at all in this contention, since all the Courts below have concurrently come to the finding that the evidence of P. W. 1 proved that the axles were of his truck and that they were missing. In any event, since the petitioner never claimed the axles to be his own nor offered any explanation as to how they came into his possession, the presumption was that he knew that they were' stolen property. In the circumstances, his conviction was based on ample legal evidence. There is no ground for granting leave in this matter. This petition is accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.