KHAIRA Versus THE STATE
The petitioner, namely, Khaira, was convicted by a learned Magistrate First Class, Sheikhupura, vide his judgment dated 31‑12-1974, under section 392/411, P.P.C. He was sentenced to two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.100 under section 392, P.P.C. In defer of payment of fine he was ordered to suffer one month's R.I. Under section 411, P.P.C., the petitioner was sentenced to one year R.I. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The petitioner preferred an appeal before a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura. The learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction of the petitioner under section 411, P.P.C., but his conviction and sentence tinder section 392, P.P.C. was, maintained. It was so done through judgment-dated 2‑7‑1976.
Through the present criminal revision, the petitioner has challenged the aforementioned judgments.
2. The occurrence in this case took place on 2‑8‑1972. It was alleged by the prosecution that three persons had hired a taxi being driven by Bashir complainant from Lahore for Sheikhupura. On the way the aforementioned persons robbed the complainant of Rs.200 and a wrist watch (Gamy make). During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested and sent up for trial. He was convicted and sentenced, as detailed above.
3. It is noteworthy that in the F.I.R. the names of three persons who allegedly hired the taxi of the complainant and subsequently robbed him of Rs.200 and a wrist watch have not been mentioned. Their descriptions have been given. The occurrence took place on 2‑8‑1972 at 8‑00 p.m. The petitioner was allegedly arrested on 22‑8‑1972. An application was submitted by the police for conducting identification parade on 26‑8‑1972. The learned Magistrate ordered the Naib‑Tehsildar, Sheikhupura, to hold identification parade in jail on 30‑8 1972. This identification parade was never held.
4. At the trial Syed Talib Hussain Shah P.W3 was examined to prove the recovery of the allegedly stolen wrist watch from the petitioner. According to this witness recovery took place at bus‑stand at about 10/11 a.m. Muhammad Yaqoob, S.I. who conducted the investigation and appeared as P.W.5, on the other hand, stated that the petitioner was arrested at Chowk Pir Bahar Shah at about‑3‑15 at night and that Camy wrist watch was recovered from his possession on that occasion. It is noteworthy that an unlicensed revolver was allegedly recovered while the person of the petitioner was searched at the time of his arrest and thus a case under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, was registered against him. In the complaint of that case it has been alleged that the petitioner C was arrested near Kot Ranjit. Muhammad Yaqoob, S.I. in his cross‑examination has tried to explain that on account of misunderstanding the word `Kot Ranjit' has been written in the complaint of the case under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, although on that day he did not go to Kot Ranjit.
5. In the light of the shortcomings detailed above, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the charge under section 392, P.P.C. was brought home to the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. In this view of the matter, the D present criminal revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted. He is already on bail and shall stand discharged of his bail bond.
M.Y.H./K‑106/L Petition allowed.