1989 P Cr (PLP)
KHUSHI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Fazal Karim, J |
| Parties | KHUSHI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 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 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Fazal Karim, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (KHUSHI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Naseer‑ud‑Din Ahmad for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 411‑‑ Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.27‑‑Dishonestly receiving stole property‑;Neither accused nor anybody else was seen stealing electric motor involved to case‑‑No evidence existed to the effect that accused knew or had reason to believe that said electric motor was stolen property‑‑Alleged recovery from accused having been made as long as more than two years after theft, no presumption, held, could be raised against accused that he was thief or had received electric motor knowing it to be stolen. Mukhtar Ali v. The State P L D 1971 SC 729 ref Rafi Saddiqui for the State:
Judgment & Decree
Mukhtar Ali v. The State P L D 1971 SC 729 ref Sh. Naseer‑ud‑Din Ahmad for Petitioner. Rafi Saddiqui for the State: The petitioner, Khushi was tried under section 411 of the P.P.C. and was, by his judgment of the learned Magistrate 1st Class, Hafizabad, dated 29‑9‑1946, convicted and sentenced. to six months' R.I. His conviction and sentence were maintained on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala's judgment, dated 7‑2‑1978.
2. On 8‑3‑1973, Ch. Abdul Aziz P.W. reported at the police station that an electric motor had been stolen from his tubewell a month before 8‑3‑1973. It was the prosecution case that the electric motor was recovered from the petitioner's house on 25‑3‑1975 in the presence of Muhammad Hayat and Elahi Bakhsh P.Ws. The petitioner denied the recovery of the electric motor from his possession.
4. Now there was no evidence that the petitioner or for that matter anybody else had been seen stealing the electric motor. And one of the essential ingredients of section 411 of the P.P.C. is that the person charged had dishonestly received or retained any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. Here, there was no evidence that the petitioner knew or had reason to believe the electric motor to be stolen property. As the alleged recovery from the petitioner was made as long as more than two years after the theft, no presumption under section 14 of the Evidence Act, 1872, namely, that 4.he petitioner was the thief or had received the electric motor knowing it to be' stolen could be raised against the petitioner. Reference may in this behalf be made to Mukhtar Ali v. The State P L D 1971 SC 725.
5. I, therefore, accept the revision petition and set aside the conviction and sentence and acquit the petitioner. He shall stand discharged of his bail bond. H.B.T./K‑148/L Revision accepted.