1986 P Cr (PLP)

Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 26th February, 1986. The appellant was convicted on the 3rd of February, 1986 by Mr. Muhammad Naeem Siddiqui, M.I.C., Mandi Bahauddin under Article 11 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and sentenced to 3 years' R.I., with a fine of Rs.1,

000. In default of payment of fine, he was to suffer 3 months' S.I., further. He has challenged the conviction and sentences through the present appeal.

2. The occurrence took place at 8‑00 p.m. on the 6th of March 1985 at Petrol Pump of Ghulam Sarwar Zaidi, situate on Gujrat, Mandi Bahauddin Road in the area of Police Station, Phalia. The appellant who was drunk and making row was apprehended by Manzoor Hussain, A.S.I., P.W.6. He was smelling liquor from his mouth. Manzoor Hussain, therefore, sent him to the Civil Hospital in the custody of Muhammad Iqbal, Constable, P.W.

3. Dr. Muhammad Rashid Javed, P.W. 1 in his report Exh. P.A. stated that the appellant was talkative and spirit smell was coming from his mouth and nostrils. His face was flushed up but gait and speech normal. The samples of urine, blood and vomits were taken and sent for chemical analysis and were found positive, vide Exh. P.B. After receiving the medical report the appellant was challaned by the prosecution.

3. The prosecution produced 6 witnesses in support of its case. All the witnesses supported the prosecution version. The petitioner in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the allegation of the prosecution and stated that it is false case made against him on account of dispute over the land with Ghulam Sarwar Zaidi, the owner of the Petrol Pump, where the alleged occurrence had taken place. He also produced in defence three witnesses. D.W. 1, Shabbir Hussain, did not say anything in favour of the appellant. D.W. 2, Ali Sher, Councillor and D.W. 3, Muhammad Aslam deposed that the appellant bears a good moral character.

4. The appellant was produced before the Court on the application of his wife Mst. Hashmat Sultana. He repented his shameful act and asked for forgiveness. He has also promised never to indulge in such an act again and would pass his life in accordance with the commands of Islam.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner is a first offender and he by his conduct neither harmed anyone nor did he cause damage to any property. In this view of the matter, I think that the purpose of law and the ends of justice will be met if the petitioner is released on probation for a period of one year on the following conditions: ‑‑ "He shall enter two bonds, with two sureties undertaking not to commit any offence, abstain from intoxicants and gambling, keep peace, be of good behaviour and appear before the Court and receive sentence if called upon during the period. He shall also appear before the Probation Officer, Gujrat once a month. The Probation Officer shall also keep watch on him and submit a quarterly report to this Court. The petitioner shall not change his present residence. The bonds shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the trial Court Mandi Bahauddin within a fortnight. A copy of this order shall be sent to the trial Court, who shall inform this Court after 12th of March, 1986 if the bonds have been filed or not. The case to come up with the reports of the Probation Officer after one year. H.A.K. Appellant released on probation.