1993 PLP 1370 (MLD)

Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 16th November, 1992. This State appeal has been filed against acquittal of Aftab Ahmad Warsi under section 379/411, P.P.C. vide judgment/order of Mr. Munawar Hussain Cheema, M.I.C., Lahore dated 30-6-1986.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that a case under section 379/411, P.P.C. was registered against the respondent vide F.I.R. No.415/85, dated 29-9-1985, Police Station Gulberg, Lahore on the complaint of one Murad Ali P.W.

3. The complainant had alleged that on 29-9-1985 at about 10-25 a.m. he had parked the MAZDA Car outside his office. Documents of Car were lying in the Car. After about 5-10 minutes of the departure the car was found missing. Hence this case.

3. The respondent was challaned and sent up for trial. The trial Court charged the respondent under section 379/411, P.P.C. and recorded the statements of three P.Ws. On application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. the respondent was acquitted vide impugned order dated 30-6-1986.

4. It is pertinent to mention here that four P.Ws. were cited by the prosecution in the calendar of witnesses and three were produced. P.W. 1 Muhammad Nawaz Constable -had stated that in his presence on 2-10-1985 Agha Aurangzeb, S.H.O., Gulberg Lahore had taken into possession the Car from the custody of the respondent at Chauburji Shamnagar, Lahore vide Exh.PA and the complainant had identified the same vide memo: Exh.PB attested by him. P.W. 2 Agha Aurangzeb had stated that the Car, according to the details of memo: Exh.PA was taken into possession from the respondent on 2-10-1985 from, in front of United Christian Hospital, Gulberg, Lahore. He had also prepared the identification memo: Exh. PB of the Car. P.W.2 drafted the formal F.I.R. Exh.PC/1 on the complaint of Exh. PC. P.W. 3 Murad Ali is the complainant who had narrated the facts mentioned by him in his complaint Exh.PC and had stated that on 2-10-1985 the Car was recovered by Gulberg Police and he had attested identification memo: Exh.PB. During cross-examination P.W. 3 had stated that on 3-10-1985 he had made statement in the trial Court that the present case had been registered due to misunderstanding and as the Car had been recovered, he did not want to proceed further. He also stated that he did not know from where the police had taken into possession the Car. The prosecution was given ten opportunities to produce the prosecution evidence but statements of only three P.Ws. out of four P.Ws. could be recorded.

5. I have perused the record with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of State. At the time of examination of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 the case property i.e. Car was not produced in the Court. P.W.1 anti P.W.2 made contradictory statements i.e. P.W.1 had stated that the Car was taken into possession from Chauburji Shamnagar, Lahore whereas P.W.2 had stated that the Car was taken into possession from, in front of U.C. Hospital, Gulberg, Lahore. P.W.3 complainant during cross-examination had stated that he had made statement on 3-10-1985 before the Magistrate that due to misunderstanding the case had been registered. His car had been recovered and he did not want to proceed further. P.W.3 never knew that from where the Car was recovered by the Police.

6. Pursuant to the above discussion I am of the view that even if four P.Ws. had been produced no case of conviction of the respondent could be made out. The respondent was rightly. acquitted by the trial Court. The appeal has no force which is dismissed. H.B.T./S-222/L Appeal dismissed.