1989 PLP 4068 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent. .
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4068 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent. . |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4068 (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 1989 PLP 4068 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4068 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent. .). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Afzal Khan Niazi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 497, 96, 98 & 103‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 3 & 4‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Contention that no search‑warrant was obtained and no public witness was associated with raid proceedings‑‑Accused not apprehended at spot though raiding party consisted of 12 persons‑‑Accused not a previous convict‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances. Muhammad Abul Fateh for the State.
Judgment & Decree
M. Afzal Khan Niazi for Petitioner. Muhammad Abul Fateh for the State. The petitioner was charged for an offence under section 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 on the allegation that he was indulging in the sale of Heroin at his Dera in Ghulmeeri where a raid was conducted by the police and Narcotic staff but the petitioner managed to escape. It has also been alleged that a decoy witness was sent to his Dera to whom the petitioner has allegedly sold Heroin.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the procedure adopted by the police and the raiding party was contrary to the provisions of sections 96, 98 and 103 of the Cr.P.C. inasmuch as neither any search warrant was obtained from the Magistrate nor any person from the public was associated with the raiding party for recovery and the raiding party entirely consisted of the police officials. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on Muhammad Aslam v. The State 1989 M L D
521. The learned counsel has also cited Muhammad Iqbal v. The State 1989 M L D 1334 in which practice of employing decoy witness has been deprecated. From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that no person from the public was associated by the raiding party at the time when the raid was conducted. The petitioner was not apprehended at the spot but according to the prosecution managed to escape though the raiding party is said to have consisted of 12 persons. The petitioner is not said to be a previous convict. In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Mianwali. S.A./M‑1559/L Bail granted.