2008 PLP 932 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD AKRAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 932 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKRAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 932 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 932 (MLD)?
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: 2008 PLP 932 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD AKRAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- N.A. Butt for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 426
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c) & 15
Accused could not be deemed to have acquired knowledge of concealment of narcotics by co-accused
Accused was simply driving a motorcycle
No recovery was effected from his person
Conviction, prima facie, had been based on presumption
Accused had made out a case for suspension of sentence
Judgment & Decree
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.1 OF 2007 Convict- applicant was tried in case F.I.R. No.127, dated 21-3-2006 registered under sections 9(c)/15 of C.N.S.A., 1997 at Police Station Sillanwali, District Sargodha by the learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha. The learned trial Judge vide his judgment, dated 21-5-2007 convicted the petitioner under sections 9-(c)/15 of C.N.S.A., 1997 and sentenced to 5 years along with fine of Rs. 10,
000. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was given to him.
2. Through this petition, the petitioner seeks suspension of his sentence on the ground that no recovery was effected from the person of the convict-applicant and that he had no knowledge of the possession of narcotics by the co-accused concealed by him by fastening with a cloth wrapped in a plastic envelope around his legs.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Convict-applicant cannot be deemed to have acquired knowledge of concealment of narcotics by the co-accused. No recovery was effected from his person. He was simply driving a motorcycle. Conviction prima facie has been based on presumption. The petitioner has made out a case for suspension of sentence.
5. In view of above, this petition is allowed and the sentence of the petitioner is suspended subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of D.R. (Judi) of this Court. H.B.T./M-59/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Sentence suspended.