1991 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khuda Dad Khan Barki for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 13
Knife recovered from accused was not produced at the time of cross-examination of witness
Knife was duly exhibited during trial
Accused did not make any request for production of knife at the time of cross-examination of a witness
Revision petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
S. 13
Knife recovered from accused was not produced at the time of cross-examination of witness
Knife was duly exhibited during trial
Accused did not make any request for production of knife at the time of cross-examination of a witness
Revision petition was dismissed in circumstances. Khuda Dad Khan Barki for Petitioner. Dil Muhammad Tarar for the State Date of hearing: 27th February 1991. Petitioner Muhammad Rafiq was convicted by Ch. Muhammad Akram,, Magistrate Section 30, Okara, for an offence under section 13/20/65 of Arms Ordinance, and sentenced to one year's R.I. vide judgment dated 21-3-1979. He appealed, which was dismissed by Malik Muhammad Saleem Akhtar, Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, vide judgment dated 3-6-1980, on the ground that the petitioner had already served the entire period of his sentence. In this revision, the petitioner impugns the judgments of both the Courts below.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, has admitted that the petitioner has already served the entire period of his sentence. On merits it is contended that when the witness was being cross-examined, the case property, i.e., the knife, was not produced in Court. The petition,, is resisted by learned counsel for the State.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and do riot find any substance in the submissions. The knife, which was allegedly recovered from the possession of the petitioner, was duly exhibited at the trial, which is the only requirement of law. If during cross-examination, he wanted to put any question with regard to the knife to the witness, he could have made a request to that effect. I have noticed no such request was ever, made in the light of this discussion, the petition is, accordingly, dismissed. S.A./M-2688/L Petition dismissed.