1991 P Cr (PLP)
AHMAD HAYA T — Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AHMAD HAYA T — Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
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 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) (AHMAD HAYA T — Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tariq Amjad Farooqi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 13
Accused was apprehended for possessing unlicensed gun
Two public witnesses did not support prosecution
Investigating Officer wag naturally interested in conviction of accused--No explicit reliance could be placed on statement of Investigating Officer
Conviction and sentence was set aside in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Ahmad Hayat petitioner stands convicted under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced to two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 in default thereof to further R.I. for one month on the charge of keeping unlicensed gun on 16-7-1987 which was recovered from him by Aman Ullah Khan, S.I. P.W.4 in the presence of Abdul Hadi P.W.2 and Muhammad Iqbal P.W.3. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.'
2. Prosecution produced 4 witnesses. Nazir Hussain is a formal witness. Abdul Hadi and Muhammad Iqbal are the witnesses of recovery of gun from the petitioner. They did not support the prosecution case. Aman Ullah Khan S.I. P.W.4 stated that he had recovered gun from the petitioner. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied the charge He did not produce any witness in defence. The trial Court convicted him on 10-2-1988. The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab on 13-4-1989. '
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the two recovery witnesses in their statements have not supported the recovery of gun from the petitioner and that the Sub-Inspector was/is an interested witness. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this revision.
4. I have considered the matter. I find that there were 3 witnesses of the recovery of unlicensed gun from the petitioner. Two of them namely Abdul Hadi and Muhammad Iqbal who were public men have refused to support the recovery of gun from the petitioner. However the Sub-Inspector has supported the prosecution case against the petitioner. He being naturally interested in the conviction of the petitioner, I feel that no implicit reliance can be placed on his solitary statement. For these reasons, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. Pursuant to the above discussion, this revision is accepted and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail. He stands discharged of the bail bonds. SA./A-1305/L Revision accepted.