| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2014 SLG 1196 2014 SLD 1196 2014 PCRLJ 88 |
Balochistan High Court
Criminal Revision No.31 of 2010, decision dated: 31st July, 2013, hearing DATE : 23rd July, 2013
MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Criminal Revision No.31 of 2010, decision dated: 31st July, 2013, hearing DATE : 23rd July, 2013
MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
ALTAF HUSSAIN and anothers
VS
The STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---S. 411---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 117 & 120---Dishonestly receiving stolen property---Onus to prove---Appreciation of evidence---Accused persons were convicted by Trial Court and sentenced to imprisonment, as stolen property was recovered from them---Validity---Mere possession of stolen property was not sufficient to constitute an offence under S.411, P.P.C., rather in addition it had to be established that person in possession of stolen property dishonestly received or retained the property knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be stolen---Onus was always on prosecution to prove essential elements of offence---In case of failure on the part of prosecution to prove basic ingredients i.e. receipt or retention of property belonging to someone else, the property being stolen one, existence of knowledge or belief on the part of person found in possession and receipt and retention was dishonest, no conviction could be awarded---Prosecution, to establish offence under S. 411, P.P.C., must not only prove that property was stolen but it must also be established that person charged with being in possession of stolen property either knew the property to be stolen or had reasonable grounds for believing the same to be stolen---Prosecution failed to prove conscious possession of accused as recovery had not been effected from their actual and conscious possession, rather it had been effected from a passenger bus, which was driven by co-convict---High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside conviction and imprisonment awarded by two Courts below and accused were acquitted of the charge---Revision was allowed in circumstances. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 439---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Concurrent findings of fact by two Courts below---Principle---Scope of revision is very limited, where finding of fact affecting decision is not based on evidence or it is result of misreading or non-reading of evidence on record, then revisional jurisdiction is very wide and is not a power but duty, which has to be exercised whenever facts calling for its exercise are brought to the…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492