1970 PLP 418 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AKRAM-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1970 PLP 418 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKRAM-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 418 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 418 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 PLP 418 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AKRAM-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S. M. Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 29th January 1970.
- S. M. Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 24th June 1969, in Criminal Revision No. 934 of 1969). Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3) Defence story not inspiring confidence and no enmity alleged against official prosecution witnesses-High Court, held, rightly upheld petitioner's conviction-Leave to Appeal refused. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑The petitioner has been convicted under section, 61 of the Punjab Excise Act for possession of 8 seers and 1 chattank of illicit charas of the value of Rs. 3,
000. The recovery was effected by the Excise Officials in the presence of Mehraj Din, P. W. 2, Atta Muhammad, P. W. 3 and Fazal Elahi, P. W. 5, none of whom . had any animus against the petitioner. It was contended before the Courts below that Mehraj Din, Atta Muhammad and Fazal Elahi were police stock witnesses and since they did not belong to the locality where the recovery was effected (Lohari Bazar, Lahore) there was contravention of section 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code. ‑It was found that all the three witnesses were residents of the areas close to Lohari Mandi where recovery was effected and that while Mehraj Din and Fazal Elahi had assisted the Excise Officials in the past, Atta Muhammad could not be described as a police stock witness. He is a Zamindar and lives in Sheikhupurian Bazar situated at a distance of about one mile from the place of recovery. In support of the petition for leave to appeal the same grounds were urged as were ruled out by the Courts below. It is difficult to believe that the Excise authorities, without any strong motive provided illicit charges worth Rs. 3,000 to falsely implicate the petitioner. No such enmity was even alleged against any one of the official witnesses. The High Court has thus rightly upheld the petitioner's conviction. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. Leave refused.