P L D 1971 Supreme Court 725 Present : Hamoodur Rahman, C. J., Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Sajjad Ahmad, JJ MUKHTAR ALI-Appellant versus THE STATE-Respondent Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 1970, decided on 28th May 1971. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 30th July 1969 in Criminal Revision No. 891 of 1969). Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 411 read with Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 114, illus. (a)-Stolen property, possession simpliciter of-No offence--Conviction under S. 411, P. P. C., not sustainable unless prosecution not only prove property to be stolen but also establish facts from which Court could properly infer that person charged with offence either knew or had reasonable ground for believing property to be stolen-Expression "soon after theft" in illus. (a) to S. 114, Evidence Act, 1872-Possession of stolen property must be recent to justify inference constituting proof of offence-No inflexible rule however that efflux of time could negative charge under S. 411, P. P. C.-Cycle, in possession of accused, alleged to have been stolen more than 2 years ago-Inference under S. 114, illus. (a), Evidence Act, 1872, held, could not be drawn. A person was convicted under section 411, P. P. C. for having received and retained in possession a bicycle said to have been stolen from custody of one M. Apart from relying on illustration (a) to section 114; Evidence Act, 1872, the prosecution evidence did not disclose any extra circumstance from which it could be inferred that the accused knew or had reason to believe that the bicycle sold by him to one Non 14-11-64 was stolen from the custody of one M on 21-1-62. Held : Being in possession of stolen property is in itself no offence. If being in possession of stolen property was itself a crime, then an innocent purchase of an article would render the purchaser liable to conviction for a serious offence. Being in possession of stolen property is only a crime if the person in possession either knows that the property is stolen property or has reasonable grounds for believing that the property had been stolen. To prove in a prosecution under section 411, P. P. C. the prosecution must not only prove that the property had been stolen, but they must also establish facts from which the Court can properly infer that the 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 have been stolen. Unless there is some prima facie evidence of the knowledge of the accused, then the later is liable to be acquitted. An accused cannot be convicted where there is no evidence against him merely because his evidence is disbelieved. If that were so, then countless people would be wrongly convicted. Possession of stolen property must be recent justifying inference constituting proof of offence. In the absence of any evidence that the appellant had received the stolen bicycle dishonestly or had knowledge or reason to believe that the same was stolen his conviction under section 411, P. P. C. cannot be sustained. Possession simpliciter of a stolen property is no offence. If possession is recent the Court will presume that the person found in possession of stolen property is the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen unless he can account for its possession. This presumption, however, did not arise in the present case as possession more than two years after theft could by no stretch of imagination be treated as recent. Mahboob v. Emperor A I R 1920 All. 85 distinguished. Bharadwaj Singh v. The State A I R 1952 Cal. 616 and Raza Muhammad and others v. The State P L D 1963 Kar. 1010 ref. Major Waheed-ud-Din Virk, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Asad Hussain Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz Ali, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for the State. Date of hearing : 28th May 1971
Posted on: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 06:00:10 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015