1304/2024 Cr.Bail AYAZULLAH S/O SYED UMER (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)

1304/2024 Cr.Bail AYAZULLAH S/O SYED UMER (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent) Sindh High Court

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) Order Date: 11-JUL-24

A bare perusal of the aforementioned provisions of law demonstrates that the same is applicable in the class of persons, who trade in such stolen articles known as receivers as the complainant has failed to recognize the applicant. Primarily, a person, immediately, after theft found to be in possession of the stolen property, the presumption would be that either he is a thief or in possession of goods with knowledge that those are stolen. Mere possession of the stolen property is not sufficient to constitute an offense under the aforementioned provisions rather in addition it has to be established that the person in possession of the stolen property had dishonestly received or retained the property knowing or having the reasons to believe the same to be stolen. The onus is always on the part of the prosecution to prove the essential elements of the offense. In case of failure on the part of the prosecution to prove the basic ingredients i.e. receipt or retention of property belonging to someone else, the property being stolen, the existence of knowledge or belief on the part of the person found in possession, and the receipt and retention as dishonest, no bail can be refused as in such circumstances it is well settled that no conviction can be awarded on such analogy. The prosecution to establish an offense under the aforesaid section, must not only prove that the property is stolen, but it must also be established that the person charged with having stolen property either knows the property to be stolen or has reasonable grounds for believing the same to be stolen.