1993 PLP 53 (SCMR)
SANA ULLAH and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1993 PLP 53 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Appellate Court |
| Bench Members | Justice Abdul Shakurul Salam, Chairman, Justices Raja Afrasiab Khan and Malik Abdul Majid Tiwana, Members |
| Parties | SANA ULLAH and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 53 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 53 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Appellate Court bench comprising: Justice Abdul Shakurul Salam, Chairman, Justices Raja Afrasiab Khan and Malik Abdul Majid Tiwana, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 53 (SCMR) (SANA ULLAH and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Asghar Rokhri, Advocate for Appellants.
- Date of hearing: 3rd October, 1992.
- Zafar Iqbal Chaudhry, Advocate for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.411/34‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Stolen car was proved to have been recovered from the possession of the accused‑‑‑Conviction and sentence of accused were upheld in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.411 /34‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Accused was allegedly sitting with co‑accused at the time of recovery of car from the latter‑‑‑Car was not recovered from the accused‑‑‑Case against accused, therefore, was not proved beyond reasonable doubt‑‑‑Accused was acquitted accordingly. Zafar Iqbal Chaudhry, Advocate for the State.
Judgment & Decree
JUSTICE ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM (CHAIRMAN).‑‑‑This appeal by Sana Ullah and Muhammad Hanif is directed against the judgment of the learned Special Court for Speedy Trial, Lahore, dated 22‑7‑1992, whereby they were convicted under section 411/34, P.P.C. and sentenced each to undergo three years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.10,000, in default to suffer further three months' R.I.
2. Relevant facts are that Captain (Retd.) Khuda Bakhsh P.W.1 was going for Jumma prayers in his Car Exh.P‑1 at 1‑45 p.m. The car was being driven by Niaz Muhammad P.W.2. He was accompanied by Muhammad Zafar and Muhammad Irshad. The car was stopped on the way. Three persons whose identification marks were given stopped the car. One of them placed a gun on the temple of the driver, snatched the car and sat on the seat of the driver. He got the complainant out of the car. He dropped the other three on the way. The F.I.R. was lodged at 2‑15 p.m. the same day viz 8‑11‑1991 at the P.S. Darya Khan, District Bhakkar. Search was made for the car. On 10‑11‑1991, the police apprehended the car which was being driven by Sana Ullah and Muhammad Hanif was sitting alongwith him. After necessary recoveries and investigation, the two appellants alongwith two others were challaned under section 397/34, P.P.C. and the two appellants also under section 411/34, P.P.C. The other two were acquitted but the appellants convicted under section 411/34, P.P.C., as stated above.
3. The evidence of the recovery of the stolen car from Sana Ullah was furnished by Khuda Bakhsh the complainant owner of the car P.W.1, its driver Niaz Ahmad P.W.2 and Niamat Ullah Shah Inspector/S.H.O. P.W.6. Plea of the accused/appellants was false involvement.
4. We have been taken through the evidence on the record and find no justification to disbelieve the complainant and Niamat Ullah Shah, Investigating Officer that the car was recovered from the possession of Sana Ullah. It is undisputed that the car was stolen.. His conviction is, therefore, well‑based and his appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
5. As regards Muhammad Hanif it was said that he was sitting with Sana Ullah when the car was recovered. It was not recovered from him. The assertion that he was one of the persons who had snatched the car has not resulted in his or others' conviction under section 397/34, P.P.C. In the circumstances, the case against him under section 411, P.P.C. is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. He is, therefore, given benefit of doubt and is acquitted. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. N.H.Q./69/S.A.C Order accordingly.