1991 P Cr (PLP)
KHIAL DIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHIAL DIN — 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) (KHIAL DIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Afzal Khan Niazi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 13
Accused was apprehended at Bus stand while having a .12 bore gun without licence
Only two police officials were examined as witnesses
No person from public was associated in recovery proceedings although many were available at the Bus stand
Conviction and sentence was set aside in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Afzal Khan Niazi for Petitioner. Khalid Mahmood Farooqi for the State. Date of hearing: 18th February, 1991. Khial Din, petitioner, stands convicted under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, and sentenced to six months' R.I. He was an army official. The charge against him was that he was keeping .12 bore gun and cartridges without any licence, on 7-8-1980, which were recovered from by Muhammad Rashid A.S.I. He was convicted by the trial Court and sentenced to six months' R.I. on 13-10-1982. The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, on 18-8-1983.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only two police officials have been produced and no independent witness was associated with the recovery of fire-arms from the petitioner. The learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment.
3. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that the fire-arm was allegedly recovered from the petitioner at a Bus stand where normally the public men are always available. Despite this, Muhammad Rashid A.S.I. did not associate any person from public. This being the position, I feel that no implicit reliance can be placed on the statements of two police officials.
4. For what has been said above, the revision is accepted and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside. He is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail. He stands discharged of his bail bond. S.A./K-318/L Revision accepted.