1991 P Cr (PLP)
ASIF MEHMOOD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ASIF MEHMOOD — 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) (ASIF MEHMOOD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Aziz Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 13
Accused was convicted for possessing Chhuri without licence
No evidence was produced to show that blade of Chhuri was 4" long or more
Memorandum of recovery could not be read in evidence as substantive piece of evidence
Conviction and sentence were set aside in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Moeid for the State. Date of hearing: 24th February, 1991. Asif Mehmood petitioner stands convicted under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 on the charge of keeping unlicensed Chhuri, and sentenced to one year's R.I.
2. Prosecution produced two witnesses. Muhammad Yousaf P.W.1 and Muhammad Hussain P.W.2 supported the recovery of Chhuri from the petitioner. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. he did not admit the recovery of Chhuri from him. He did not produce any witness in defence. 3: Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution has failed to prove that the blade of the Chhuri was 4" or more than that. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the Appellate Court.
4. I have considered the matter. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that there is no legal evidence that the blade of the Chhuri recovered from the petitioner was 4" or more than that. The recovery memo. being not a substantive piece of evidence cannot be read in aid of the statements of the recovery witnesses. For these reasons, I feel that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. For what has been said above, the revision is accepted. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. SA./A-1269/L Revision accepted.