1995 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1995 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 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: 1995 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Subah Sadiq Kalason for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S, 497
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.
All the five prosecution witnesses against the accused were police employees and only two of them had so far been examined by Trial Court
Accused was in judicial lock-up for the last eight months
Sentence provided for the offence was imprisonment for life but in any case not less that two years and the case against accused, therefore, did not fall squarely within the mischief of subsection (1) of 5.497, Cr.P.C.
Police Officer who conducted the raid, recovered heroin and investigated the case after registration of F.I.R was also a witness of recovery himself which practice was not appreciable whereby the accused was prejudiced
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner was arrested on 14-8-1994 while he was standing no the match factory Bus Stop Shahdara on 14-8-1994 and on his personal sear, heroin weighing 22 grams was recovered from his possession and as consequence of recovery, F.I.R. No.438/1994 was registered at Police Station Shahdara on the same day under Article 3/4 Prohibition (Enforcement Hadd) Order, 1979.
2. All the five witnesses against the petitioner were police employees anal the petitioner was in judicial lock-up for the last months and only two witnesses have appeared in Court and were examined.
3. The sentence provided for the offence was imprisonment of life but in any case not less than 2 years. I do feel that it does not fall squarely within the mischief of subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. The witnesses against the petitioner are police officials and nothing could stop them from appearing before the trial Court on the dates fixed for recording of evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised an objection that no public witness was associated at the time of raid but the same was not relevant for the present. The recovery was not made from the house of the petitioner nor at his pointation. Be that as it may, the trial Court may appreciate the objection, if so raised, at the time of final judgment. The prosecution cannot be allowed to withhold the production of witnesses and keep the accused in judicial lock-up for an indefinite period.
5. Amanat Ali, A.S.I. was the Investigating Officer of the case and he recovered the heroin from the possession of the petitioner and as such was a witness of recovery himself. I take very serious view of the fact that the Police Officer conducted the raid and recovered heroin and then proceeded further in the investigation after the F.I.R. was registered. In such cases the accused are prejudiced at the first step in exercise of the State power. This practice is not, appreciable. Copy of the order be sent to the 1.-G., Punjab for his information.
6. This petition is allowed.
7. The petitioner shall be released subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Lahore. N.H.Q./M-2059/L Bail allowed;