1991 P Cr (PLP)
ALLAH DMA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ALLAH DMA — 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) (ALLAH DMA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rafiq Ahmad Malik for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 411
Recovery witnesses admittedly were interested witnesses
Investigating Officer had taken them with him from place of occurrence for making them witnesses of the recovery and they were not even natural witnesses
Property was recovered from a place which was also not in exclusive possession of accused
Accused was acquitted in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Rafiq Ahmad Malik for Petitioner. Rizman Wasti for the State. Date of hearing: 30th May, 1990. Allah Ditta petitioner was tried under section 411, P.P.C. by Magistrate 1st Class, Muzaffargarh on the charge of retaining hand-pump of the value of Rs.900 knowing the same to be a stolen property. On 12-6-1982, he was convicted and sentenced to one year R.I. On appeal, the conviction was maintained but the sentence was reduced from one year to six months' R.I. Hence this revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Allah Bakhsh and Sultan Mahmood, the recovery witnesses are not reliable inasmuch as Allah Bakhsh has admitted his enmity with the accused and Sultan Mahmood is closely, related to the complainant. The learned counsel for the State has opposed this petition.
3. I have considered the matter carefully. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly Allah Bakhsh and Sultan Mahmood, the recovery witnesses are the interested witnesses. They are also not the natural witnesses. The Investigating Officer took them with him from the place of occurrence for making them witnesses of the recovery. Furthermore, the property was recovered from a place which was not in the exclusive possession of the petitioner.
4. Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision is accepted, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail. He stands discharged of the bail bond. N.H.Q./A-1114/L Revision petition accepted.