1991 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD MUNIR-UD-DIN and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MUNIR-UD-DIN and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
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 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD MUNIR-UD-DIN and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Masood Mirza for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 39-A
Factory belonging to accused was found directly connected with main line of electricity
Nobody had seen accused connecting wire with main line
Presence of accused in factory could create suspicion that they had connected the wire but suspicion could-not take the place of proof
No independent person was associated at the time of raid
Witnesses were employees of WAPDA
Prosecution having failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt accused were acquitted in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Munir-ud-Din and Muhammad Zameer-ud-Din petitioners were tried under section 39-A of the Electricity Act on the charges of theft of electricity. The petitioners own ribbon factory situate Shahdara Lahore.
2. The prosecution case is that on 13-11-1981, Javed Iqbal Azad, S.D.O. Electricity alongwith Abdul Hameed, Line Superintendent and Linemen namely Muhammad Sadiq and Muhammad Akram inspected Ribbon Factory and found that electric wire was fitted with main line and the petitioners were present there.
3. On his report a case under section 379, P.P.C. read with section 39-A of the Electricity Act was registered at Police Station Shahdara against the petitioners. However, they were charged under section 39-A of the Electricity Act.
3. The prosecution produced Javed Iqbal Azad, S.D.O. P.W.1, Abdul Hameed, Line Superintendent P.W.2 and Muhammad Sadiq and Muhammad Akram Linemen as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. They stated that on the eventful day, they found that electric wire was fitted with the WAPDA main line in the premises of Ribbon Factory and the petitioners were present there. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the petitioners denied the incriminating circumstances. They produced 3 witnesses in defence. The trial Court convicted petitioners under section 39-A of the Electricity Act and sentenced them to one year's R.I. each and a fine of Rs.5,000 each, in default thereof six months' R.I. each. The appeal filed by them was dismissed in the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore on 11-4-1988.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no one had seen the petitioners connecting electric wire with the main line, and that no independent witness has been produced in proof of the charge against the petitioners. No one has appeared for the State.
6. I have considered the matter carefully. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. I find that there is no direct evidence of the petitioners' fitting electric wires with WAPDA main line and the evidence is that at the time of raid, they were seen present in the factory. The circumstances that the petitioners were/are owner of the factory and they were present in the factory, may create suspicion that they might have fitted the electric wire with WATDA main line, but the suspicions after all are suspicions and do not/cannot take place of the proof. Furthermore, no independent witness was associated at the time of raid. P.Ws. l to 4 are all employees of WAPDA. For these reasons, I feel that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. For what has been said above, the revision is accepted and giving them the benefit of doubt, the petitioners are acquitted of the charge. S.A./M-2939/L Revision accepted.