MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus STATE

ORDER

KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J. ‑The petitioner was involved in a case under section 411, P. P. C. for having been found in possession of stolen goods namely four golden bangles, one ear‑ring and three finger rings which belonged to Abdul Rashid owner of Pakistan Jewellery House, bazar Sarafa, Rawalpindi and were stolen from his shop on 10‑1‑1974 at 11 or 12 clock a.m. An F. I. R. was lodged about that theft and was recorded at the instance of Abdul Rahid aforesaid at police Station "C" Division, Rawalpindi City, at 2‑45 p.m. It appears that the petitioner was apprehended at about 6‑00 p.m. by P. W. 6 Raja Pir Muhammad while the petitioner was going in a taxi. As the movements of the petitioner appeared to be suspicious therefore his person was searched and the articles aforesaid were recovered from him. During the trial a charge under section 411, P. P. C. was framed against the petitioner and after recording the necessary evidence the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty and by order dated 27‑2‑1975 convicted and sentenced him to undergo two year's rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 12‑7‑1978. The petitioner filed a revision being Criminal Revision No. 549/78 but that too was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 24‑7‑1978. The petitioner has come up to a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the judgment of the learned Magistrate did not particularly specify the offence of the P. P. C. under which the petitioner had been convicted. It was submitted that this constituted a violation of the provisions of section 367(2) of the Cr. P. C. which according to him dealt with the subject as to what a judgment should contain. It was argued that the result of the aforesaid violation was that in the eye of law there was no valid conviction order against the petitioner. The contention has no merit. The only offence for which the petitioner had been charged was under section 411, P. P. C. and when the learned Magistrate found him guilty, obviously it was the offence fore which the petitioner had been charged, and the technical plea raised in the; circumstances cannot help him in any manner.

3. The next point argued was that during the examination of the petitioner under section 342, Cr. P. C. it was not asked from him whether he was retaining the ornaments with knowledge or having reason to believe that they were stolen property. It was submitted that failure to put this specific aspect of the matter to the petitioner vitiated the whole trial. The contention has no force. It is to be pointed out that the recovery of the ornaments from the petitioner has not been disputed before us. Similarly the petitioner did not claim the ornaments and in the circumstances the evidence of the complainant was accepted by the courts below that the ornaments belonged to him. There was a proper F. I. R. lodged at 2‑45 p.m. about the theft of these ornaments much prior to the arrest of the petitioner. In this context a plea of the kind which has been advanced has no substance especially when it has not been shown as to whether and how it has caused any prejudice to the petitioner. All the three Courts below have appreciated the evidence and have found that, on merits the case has been duly established against the petitioner. Learned counsel has not pointed out violation of any fundamental principle of law in the matter of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases or regarding his guilt, so as to warrant interference by this Court. The petition has no merit and is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.