MUHAMMAD JAMIL, CHIEF ACCOUNTANT, THAL JUTE MILLS, MUZAFFARGARH vs NASIR NAEEM and another
This criminal revision petition challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh, which set aside the conviction and sentence of the respondents under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, originally imposed by a Magistrate 1st Class. The respondents were accused of possessing stolen money following a theft at a jute mill. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently established that the currency recovered from the respondents was indeed the stolen property, given the absence of identifying marks or note numbers. Upon reviewing the record, the High Court found that the prosecution failed to connect the recovered currency to the stolen amount. Specifically, the recovery witnesses admitted that the currency note numbers were neither recorded in the recovery memos nor previously identified by the cashier. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of the offence under Section 411, P.P.C. Consequently, the Court upheld the acquittal, affirming that the appellate court's judgment did not suffer from any illegality or impropriety warranting interference in revision.
- Is the recovery of currency from an accused sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the prosecution fails to identify the currency as the specific stolen property?
- Can a conviction under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be maintained when recovery witnesses admit that the serial numbers of the recovered currency notes were not recorded or identified?
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' This criminal revision calls in question judgment, dated 17-9-1988 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh, whereby he set aside the judgment, dated 8-12-1987 of the learned Magistrate 1st Class, Muzaffargarh, whereby the latter had convicted the respondents Nos.1 and 2 under section 411, P.P.C. And sentenced them to undergo R.I. For two years each.
2. Information was laid before Police Station Saddar Muzaffargarh by the petitioner on 31-3-1982 that when he reached his office on 31-3-1982 his Head Cashier informed him that he had found lock on two steel Almirah open in the cash room adjacent to the main office and that the lock of the cash box inside the said Almirah was found broken and sum of Rs,1,36,345 was missing. This cash was placed in the said box by Saeed Ahmad cashier of the Mill. On the said report, case under section 457/380, P.P.C. Was registered vide F.I.R. No,82 of 1982 of even date. The matter was investigated into. As a result whereof, a challan against four persons including respondents Nos.1 and 2 was filed under sections 457/380 and 411/201, P.P.C. The accused persons were tried by the Magistrate 1st Class, Muzaffargarh. Charge was framed and evidence was recorded. Vide judgment, dated 8-12-1987 the respondents Nos.1 and 2 were found guilty of having committed an offence under section 411, P.P.C. And were accordingly convicted and sentenced to two years' R.I.
Each. It was also ordered that the amount of Rs,17,000 recovered from the accused be handed over to the Management of the Mill. Feeling aggrieved, respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed an appeal which was heard by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh who has set aside the said conviction and sentence and has acquitted the respondents Nos.1 and 2 vide his judgment, dated 17-9-1988. The amount of Rs,17,000 recovered from them has ordered to be returned to the said respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the recovery of sum of Rs,10,000 from Nasir Naeem respondent No,1 and of Rs,7,000 from Muhammad Idrees respondent No,2 vide recovery memos. Exh.P.C. And Exh.P.D. Constituted sufficient evidence of their guilt and the impugned judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitting the said accused persons is contrary to law. Learned counsel for the State also attacks the impugned judgment by adopting the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 submits that there was no evidence on record to connect the respondents Nos.1 and 2 with the alleged theft of money from the safe of the Mill; that there is no evidence identifying the case property to be the one stolen from the petitioner's office and as such this was a case of no evidence from the prosecution side. With these contentions, learned counsel supports the impugned judgment.
4. I have gone through the record. I find that the observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that there is no evidence on record to show that the amount allegedly recovered from respondents Nos.1 and 2 is the same amount that had been allegedly stolen from the cash box of the Mill is borne out from record. I may refer to the statement of Nisar Ahmad P.W.3 who is witness to all the said recovery memos. This witness has deposed in the Court of cross-examination that the currency notes were identified with reference to their numbers. He admits that in the memos.
Exh.P.C. And Exh.P.D. Numbers of notes were not mentioned. He also admits that the concerned cashier did not tell him the number of currency notes that had been stolen. Ultimately, he said that he had not informed the police of A number of the stolen notes. He is the main witness who was relied upon by the learned Magistrate while recording the conviction and sentence that had been set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. To my mind the possession of respective amounts by the accused persons had been sufficiently explained in the statement of the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. As also D.W.3 in the case of Idrees respondent. I, therefore, conclude that the prosecution had failed to make out a case against respondents Nos.1 and 2 for their conviction under section 411, P.P.C. The impugned judgment, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety, so as to call for interference in this criminal revision, which is accordingly dismissed.