1969 PLP 294 (SCMR)

HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑The petitioner was convicted under section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code by a 1st Class Magistrate of Toba Tek Singh as certain articles of domestic use stolen from the complainant's house on the night between the 11th and 12th June 1966, were recovered on the 15th June 1966, at his instance, from underneath a heap of sugarcane choora in his dera. The conviction was upheld on appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge of Lyallpur and the High Court of West Pakistan has refused to interfere in revision. The appellate Court took the view that since the articles were recovered at the instance of the petitioner himself from the place where they lay hidden, the inference could reasonably be drawn that the petitioner had hidden them there knowing that the articles were stolen articles. The place of concealment of the articles could have only been in his exclusive knowledge. The High Court has dismissed the petition in limine holding that the recoveries made were well proved by completely independent and disinterested witnesses who had no reason to falsely implicate the petitioner. Learned counsel contends that on the facts proved the offence has not been made out, because, the heap of sugarcane choora was not in a place which was within the exclusive control of the petitioner. The mere fact, therefore, that he got them recovered from there did not establish his guilt. In support of this contention learned counsel has relied on Trimbak v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (1954 Cr. L J 335). In that case the stolen articles were recovered by the accused from an open field belonging to another person and accessible to all and sundry. It was in those circumstances that the Indian Supreme Court took the view that the High Court was wrong in interfering with the acquittal of the accused by the trial Court and convicting him under section 411, for, such a recovery was compatible with the circumstance that some body else placed the articles there and the accused somehow came to know of it. We are, however, unable to agree that the facts established in the present case did not make out a case against the petitioner. The fact that he got the stolen articles recovered from their place of concealment clearly indicates that he knew that they had been hidden there. There is no evidence that this place was accessible to other persons. The petitioner did not .4 also deny that the place of recovery was not in his dera. He denied the recovery altogether. From these facts the inference was justified that the petitioner himself had hidden them there. It was not also his case that it was hidden there by any one else. If he hid them there himself, then the goods were in his possession and if these were stolen goods then he was possessing them knowing that they were stolen goods. The inference drawn by the Courts below was, therefore, legitimate and his guilt was clearly established. The next contention is that the defence evidence has not been considered. There is no substance in this either, for, the defence evidence has been referred to both by the Court of appeal as well as the trial Court who have disbelieved the same. There is no question, therefore, other than that of appreciation of evidence arising in this case. This is not a function normally undertaken by this Court. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave Refused.