1991 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 4
Two recovery witnesses were police officials while the third was a stock-witness
No independent corroboration was available
Implicit reliance thus could not be placed on testimony of witnesses-- Conviction and sentence was set aside in circumstances: --[Witness].
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 25th March, 1991. Muhammad Aslam petitioner stands convicted under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and sentenced to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000, in default thereof further R.I. for 4 months.
2. The charge against the petitioner was that he was keeping 450 m.l. liquor in a plastic bottle Exh. P.1, which was recovered from his possession by Muhammad Siddiq A.S.I. in the presence of Muhammad Arshad constable and Muhammad Shafi P.Ws.
3. To prove its case prosecution produced 5 witnesses. Muhammad Siddiq A.S.I. P.W.4 and Muhammad Shafi P.W.5 have supported the recovery of plastic bottle containing liquor from the personal search of the petitioner. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature. '
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied the recovery of liquor from him. In defence he produced Jan Muhammad D.W.1 and Arshad Ali D.W.2 who stated that the petitioner was arrested by the police when he was coming out of a cinema after seeing a film and that he was of a good moral character. The petitioner gave evidence on oath in disproof of the charge f against him.
5. The trial Court convicted the petitioner on 20-7-1988. The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala on 15-3-1989.
6. No one has appeared for the parties. Since revision after having been admitted cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution, so I have examined the case I myself. I find that the prosecution has produced 3 witnesses in proof of the recovery of liquor from the petitioner. Muhammad Siddiq and Muhammad Arshad are police officials and Muhammad Shafi having appeared in several cases as witness, was/is a stock-witness. There is no independent corroboration of the statements made by them. In these circumstances, I feel that no implicit reliance can be placed on the uncorroborated testimony of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses. Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision is accepted- and while p giving him benefit of doubt, the petitioner is acquitted of the charge. SA./M-2948/L Revision accepted.