1990 PLP 345 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD MURAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 345 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh, Zaffar Hussain Mirza |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MURAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 345 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 345 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh, Zaffar Hussain Mirza.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 345 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD MURAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. A. M. Quadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 8th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Baluchistan High Court, Quetta dated 16‑4‑1989 in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 1989). ‑‑‑S.13‑E‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Courts below founded guilt of accused on proper and cogent evidence‑‑‑Accused taking plea which was neither taken at the trial nor before the High Court, and therefore, was not entitled to raise same for first time before Supreme Court‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
S. A. M. Quadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 8th June, 1989. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of Baluchistan High Court dismissing an appeal riled by petitioner against the judgment recorded against him by Additional Sessions Judge, Quetta by which he was held guilty under section 13‑E of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced to 3 years' R.I. According to prosecution, on the raid organized by police party, petitioner's house was surrounded and when he came out he had an unlicensed rifle which was seized and the police also took into possession two cartridges in its magazine. On further search a sword was recovered which was lying on a bed in the house. Learned trial Judge believed the prosecution witnesses and held the petitioner guilty on the charges levelled against him except for possession of unlicensed sword for which benefit was granted to the petitioner for the reason that since there were other occupants in the house it was not proved that petitioner was in exclusive possession of the sword. Learned Judge in the High Court on reappraisal of the evidence recorded in the case upheld the guilt of the petitioner and dismissed the appeal filed by him. We find that the Courts below have founded guilt of the petitioner on proper and cogent evidence produced by the prosecution. Learned counsel however sought to argue that the evidence regarding the recovery of the rifle is discrepant and petitioner is therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt. This plea was neither taken at the trial nor before the High Court and petitioner is therefore not entitled to raise it for the first time before this Court. There is no merit in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed. M.A.K./M‑1022/S Petition dismissed.