1987 PLP 1918 (MLD)
KHAN MUHAMMAD — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1918 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan and Lehrasap Khan, JJ |
| Parties | KHAN MUHAMMAD — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1918 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1918 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan and Lehrasap Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1918 (MLD) (KHAN MUHAMMAD — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Latif Khosa for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 6th June, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
S.13--No witness of locality--Recovery of unlicensed gun Witness to recovery not resident of locality--No resident of locality produced as witness Investigation Officer, complainant in case, naturally interested in conviction of accused--Prosecution, held, had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt--Acquittal ordered in circumstances. Ijaz Hussain Batalvi and Ch. Zafar Yaseen for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.--This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Khushab whereby he on 7-5-1983 convicted Khan Muhammad appellant under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced him to one year R.I.
2. The charge against him was that he was found in possession of unlicensed .12 bore gun P.1 on 5-1-1982.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced three witnesses namely Muhammad Yousaf, Head Constable PW.1, Fateh Khan PW.2 and Munir Ahmad S.I. PW.3. Muhammad Yousaf PW.1 had recorded the formal FIR whereas the two other witnesses stated that unlicensed gun P.1 was recovered from the possession of the appellant. The appellant denied the recovery of gun from him. In defence no witness was produced.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no witness of the locality was produced and as such the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. We find that Fateh Khan PW.2 was not residing at place of recovery and no person from the locality was joined to witness the recovery of the gun from the appellant and that Munir Ahmad ASI being the complainant in the case was naturally interested in the conviction of the appellant. For all these reasons, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
6. For what has been said above, the appeal is accepted and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. S.A./K-30/L Appeal accepted.