1985 PLP 1600 (MLD)
FAROOQ AZAM — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1600 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan and Lehrasap Khan, JJ |
| Parties | FAROOQ AZAM — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1600 (MLD)?
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 1985 PLP 1600 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan and Lehrasap Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1600 (MLD) (FAROOQ AZAM — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Aftab Farrukh for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 26th May, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
S.13--Prosecution witnesses quite independent having no ill-will against accused--No inherent infirmity found in statements of said witnesses--Accused not caring to rebut prosecution evidence-- Trial Court, held, rightly convicted accused--Conviction maintained. Kh. Shaukat Ali for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Kh. Shaukat Ali for the State. Date of hearing: 26th May, 1985. MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.--This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot whereby he on 31-3-1985 convicted Farooq Azam appellant under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced him to six months R.I.
2. The charge against the appellant was that he was keeping dagger P.I without any valid authority or permit.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced three witnesses, out of whom Mahmood Ahmed P. W.1 and Muhammad Riaz S.H.O. P.W.3 stated that on 4-7-1982, the appellant .id led to the recovery of dagger P.1 from his residential house for which he has not having any licence or permit.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the recovery of dagger from him. He did not produce: any evidence in defence.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the recovery witness are not reliable and that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt . On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. I find that Mahmood Ahmad P. W.1 and Muhammad Riaz P. W.3 are quite independent witnesses, having no ill-will with the appellant. I do not see any inherent infirmity in their statement. The appellant did not care to rebut prosecution case and its evidence. For all these reasons I am satisfied that the trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. It is, however, directed that the sentence awarded to Farooq Azam appellant in this case shall run concurrently with the sentence awarded to him in the main murder case. H. A. K. Appeal dismissed.