1991 PCr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PCr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PCr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PCr (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 PCr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 411
No case of theft was registered against accused
F.I.R. was registered after eleven days of the alleged theft
Story that accused had voluntarily returned the sheep to the owner without any gratification did not appeal to reason
Such like cases being very easy to concoct but very difficult to rebut, prosecution had, thus, failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt
Accused was acquitted in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Petitioner. Khalid Mahmood Farooqui for the State. Date of hearing: 12th February, 1991. Muhammad Ali petitioner stands convicted under section 411, P.P.C. on the charge of keeping four sheep knowing the same to be stolen property.
2. The prosecution produced witnesses Sidayat, Shera and Ahmad P.Ws. stated that the sheep were stolen from the house of Ahmad on the night between 29/30-12-1978. They approached the petitioner who returned the sheep to them, which they produced before the police. Zaheer Abbas, A.S.I. stated that the complainant had produced the stolen sheep, which had been returned to him by the petitioner before him. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating circumstances. The trial Court convicted him on 28-8-1969 and sentenced him to one year's R.I. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge reduced the sentence from one year to six months' R.I.
3. No one has appeared for the petitioner. I have examined the case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State. I find that no case of theft was registered against the petitioner, that the F.I.R. was registered after 11 days of the alleged theft; that the story that the petitioner had voluntarily returned the sheep to the owner without any gratification does not appeal to reason. It is very easy to concoct such like cases but very difficult to rebut the same. For what has been said above, I feel that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts, so the revision is accepted and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge. N.H.Q./M-2826/L Revision accepted.