PLD 1949

P (PLP)

KHANO‑Accused‑ — Petitioner Versus CROWN‑Complainant‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Criminal Revision No. 12 of 1949, decided on 16th May 1949, of the order of Magistrate First Class, Chaman, dated 23rd February 1949.
Honorable Judges
Bacon, J. C.
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation P (PLP)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members Bacon, J. C.
Parties KHANO‑Accused‑ — Petitioner Versus CROWN‑Complainant‑Respondent
Primary Law Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 71---Accused (under S. 411) himself thief‑Fact of recovery only evidence of theft--- Recovery of stolen properly does not constitute separate offence ‑Conviction and sentences under Ss. 379 and 411 improper., The accused himself being the thief, the recovery of stolen property from his possession was in fact evidence of theft and cannot constitute a separate offence under section 411 Indian Penal Code. It was, improper to convict and sentence the accused under both sections 379 and 41.
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 71---Accused (under S. 411) himself thief‑Fact of recovery only evidence of theft--- Recovery of stolen properly does not constitute separate offence ‑Conviction and sentences under Ss. 379 and 411 improper., The accused himself being the thief, the recovery of stolen property from his possession was in fact evidence of theft and cannot constitute a separate offence under section 411 Indian Penal Code. It was, improper to convict and sentence the accused under both sections 379 and 41. as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Bacon, J. C..

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: P (PLP) (KHANO‑Accused‑ — Petitioner Versus CROWN‑Complainant‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 71---Accused (under S. 411) himself thief‑Fact of recovery only evidence of theft--- Recovery of stolen properly does not constitute separate offence ‑Conviction and sentences under Ss. 379 and 411 improper. The accused himself being the thief, the recovery of stolen property from his possession was in fact evidence of theft and cannot constitute a separate offence under section 411 Indian Penal Code. It was, improper to convict and sentence the accused under both sections 379 and 41.