1988 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Khalid Alvi for the State. The petitioner was convicted under section 411, P.P.C. for having retained in his possession on the night between 9/10th May, 1981, three heads of cattle belonging to Allah Yar P.W. 1 knowing or having reason to believe the same to be 'stolen property' vide order of the trial Magistrate, dated 30‑11‑1982. He went in appeal before the Sessions Judge against his conviction and sentence which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, on 23‑1‑1983 in toto, hence this revision.

2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that on the night between 9/10th May, 1981, Ziaul Haque S.I. P.W.4, Incharge Police Station Kehror Pacca, Saeed Akhtar P.W. 2 and Azeem P.W. 3 were present near level crossing. At the dead of night Allah Ditta petitioner passed near them driving a buffalo, a cow and a calf. Suspecting the animals as stolen property the S.I. seized them under section 550, Cr.P.C. through memo. Exh.P.B. attested by Saeed Akhtar and Azeem P.Ws. In the meantime, the owner of the animals, namely, Allah Yar accompanied by his brother Muhammad Amin P.W. 5 reached there and told the S.I. that those cattle were lifted the same night from their place. The S.I. recorded Exh.P.A. the statement of Allah Yar and got a case registered on its basis vide F.I.R. Exh.P.A./1. After completing the necessary investigation the petitioner was challaned to Court.

3. Believing the prosecution case the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner which order was maintained by the Additional Sessions Judge as indicated above.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the State and also perused the record.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has frankly and rightly e‑needed that the charge under section 411, P.P.C. has been successfully brought home to the petitioner on the basis of overwhelming evidence on record. However, he made a fervent appeal that both the Courts below have erred on the side of severity in award of sentence.

6. I have gone through the record with the assistance of the learned counsel and find that initially the prosecution case was that three heads of cattle namely, a calf, a cow and a buffalo belonging to Allah Yar P.W. 1 were recovered from the possession of the petitioner on the relevant night but in the charge framed against the petitioner the trial Court omitted to mention 'The Calf' among the stolen animals retained by the petitioner, dishonestly. Again during his examination under section 342, Cr.P.C. at the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the petitioner was asked to explain about keeping in his possession dishonestly a buffalo alone.

7. It seems, therefore, that while awarding sentence the lower Court had the impression that three heads of stolen cattle were recovered from the petitioner whereas according to the record he could be convicted for keeping in his possession a stolen buffalo only. Therefore, while maintaining the conviction under section 411, P.P.C. I feel inclined to interfere with the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner being excessive and reduce the same from one year to four months' R.I. as it would adequately meet the requirement of the case in my view. The result is that this revision is partly accepted on the point of sentence alone. S. A./A‑252/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Sentence reduced.