1999 PLP 2756 (SCMR)

Representation

• Muhammad Ismail Qureshi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant.
• Date of hearing: 8th January, 1999.
• ----S. 13---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185---Appraisal of evidence-- Arrest of the accused advocate from the District Courts premises on trumped up charges would have stirred the Lawyers' community as well as the other officials working in that premises---Office of the Deputy Commissioner, the Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police were also not far off from the District Courts---None of the advocates had protested nor did they inform their brother Lawyers and no information was passed to the higher Authorities with regard to the alleged highhandedness of the Police---Defence plea taken by accused was, therefore, devoid of force---Accused was also facing his trial on another charge under Ss. 392 & 397, P.P.C.---Identity of accused stood established by the defence version because according to the defence witnesses the accused was in police custody---Conviction and sentence of accused were upheld in circumstances.
• Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
• 3. The prosecution sought to establish its case through two recovery witnesses both police officers, i.e. Iqbal Hussain P.W.1, a Foot Constable and Nazir Hussain, Sub-Inspector, P.W.3, who were members of the police party holding a Naka. The learned trial Judge, who had the opportunity to hear and observe the demeanour of these witnesses, came to the conclusion that their statements were inspiring and they were truthful witnesses and despite gruelling cross-examination, nothing could be elicited by the defence to shake their credit. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the charge and sought to produce defence witnesses. The appellant in his defence stated that he was a practising Advocate and on 4-10-1989 at about 2.00 p.m. he was arrested from the premises of the District Courts from his Chamber and his arrest, was witnessed by Pir Nazar Sajjad Qureshi. D.W.1, Mohib Ali Khan, D.W.2 and Syed Amir Shah, Advocates. Amanullah Farooq, D.W.3 also entered the witness box and stated that on 5-10-1989 he had seen the appellant in custody of the police when they had come to the Multan Law College. It may be stated here that D.W.3 is the Administrative Officer of the Law College.
• 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and having gone through the judgments and record of the case, we are of the view that it was rightly concluded by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court that the defence plea was devoid of force. The arrest of an advocate from the premises of the District Courts in Multan on trumped up charges would have stirred the lawyers' community as well as the other officials working in the said premises. The offices of the Deputy Commissioner, the Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police are not far off from the District Courts. None of the advocates protested nor did they inform their brother lawyers and no information was passed to the higher authorities with regard to the alleged highhandedness of the police. The silence on the part of the Advocates, who appeared in defence, takes bottom out of the prosecution case. It is further pertinent to mention that the appellant was also facing his trial on another charge under sections, 392 and 397, P.P.C. vide F.I.R. No.214 of 1989.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree