P L D 2006 Supreme Court 263 (PLP)
RIAZ MASIH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2006 Supreme Court 263 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hameed Dogar, Mian Shakirullah Jan and Raja Fayyaz Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | RIAZ MASIH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2006 Supreme Court 263 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2006 Supreme Court 263 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Hameed Dogar, Mian Shakirullah Jan and Raja Fayyaz Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2006 Supreme Court 263 (PLP) (RIAZ MASIH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zulfiqar Ahmad Bhutta, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Mehmood Ahmed Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 7(b) & 7(h)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Accused was a habitual car lifter and was involved in many cases
Many incriminating articles including registration books and number plates of different vehicles had been recovered by the police from the house of accused
Stolen car of the present case had also been recovered from the possession of accused
Forensic Science Laboratory had given a positive report about the crime empties collected by the police from the spot--Prosecution witnesses had fully implicated the accused in the commission of offence--Petition for leave to appeal was barred by 198 days for which no plausible explanation had been given
Leave to appeal was declined to accused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.
This petition is directed against the judgment dated 11-6-2004 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench whereby Criminal Appeal No.78-T of 2004 filed by petitioner was dismissed and his conviction and sentence recorded under section 7(b) of Anti-Terrorism Act to 5 years' R.I. with fine of Rs.10,000 or in default to further undergo R.I. for 3 months and under section 7(h) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 to one year R.I. was maintained. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to the petitioner.
2. Precisely, the allegation against the petitioner was that he along with his co-accused fired successive shots on police party while Abdur Razzaq, Inspector AC.LC Headquarter, Golera Sharif, Islamabad, accompanied by Asjad Mehmood, S.I. and other police officials were present on patrol duty in Sector I-8 and were checking stolen vehicles. While checking the car, a Suzuki Mehran came rushing from the side of Sector I-8/2 at 8-20 p.m. to which Muhammad Akram, Constable gave it signal with a torch to stop but the driver dashed the car towards him in order to hit him but he was saved. The said car had the plate No.IDL-3571. The complainant party followed the car but the culprits succeeded in running away. However, the petitioner was arrested on 8-8-2003 in some other cases bearing F.I.R. Nos. 275 and
276. He was shown his arrest in these cases on 19-8-2003 and on his pointation the police recovered Registration Book of IDL/3517, ID Card, transfer letter, diary, cheque book, photocopy of bill of-entry, note book, another note book, purse containing telephone diary etc. two number plates LXM-6327, two more number plates IDT 6025, two number plates IDK/2013 and 6 number plates, 6 digits of IDM 15 figures, photocopy of II) card, registration book photo copy of ID card, registration letter, registration book, photo copy of ID card, Transfer letter, registration book, photo copy of ID card, transfer letter and registration book from his house. Police also recovered above mentioned stolen car and crime empties which were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and the report was positive.
3. From above narration, it transpires that the petitioner is habitual car lifter and is involved in so many cases. In instant case, police has collected so many articles including registration books and number plates of different vehicles. The prosecution has produced as many as 7 A witnesses who have fully implicated petitioner with the commission of offence. Petition is also barred by 198 days for which no plausible explanation has been given.
4. Accordingly, we find no reasons to differ with the impugned judgment, thus petition is dismissed and leave declined. N.H.Q./R-6/S????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave to appeal refused.