1991 PLP 1786 (MLD)
ATTAULLAH KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1786 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ATTAULLAH KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1786 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1786 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1786 (MLD) (ATTAULLAH KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rab Nawaz Khan Niazi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 379 & 411
Accused was convicted on the charge of theft and retaining the stolen property
Held, under the law it was not possible to convict the same person as a thief and as a receiver of stolen property
Judgment & Decree
Ss. 379 & 411
Accused was convicted on the charge of theft and retaining the stolen property
Held, under the law it was not possible to convict the same person as a thief and as a receiver of stolen property
Accused was acquitted of the charges in circumstances. Rab Nawaz Khan Niazi for Petitioner. Begum Nasim for the State. Date of hearing: 29th May, 1991. Ata Ullah Khan, petitioner, stands convicted under section 379/411, P.P.C. and sentenced to one year's R.I. on each count with the direction that the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. Since after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I feel inclined to accept this revision and set aside the conviction and sentence on account of legal infirmity, so I need not set out the facts in detail and enter into the merits of the case. I find that under law, it is not possible to convict the same person as a thief and as a receiver of the stolen property. Since in this case, the Courts below have convicted the petitioner under two offences on the charge of theft and retaining the stolen property, so there is no option but to accept the revision.
3. For what has been said above, the revision is accepted and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges. He is on bail. He stands discharged of his bail bond. MA.K./A-1339/L Revision accepted.