1992 P Cr (PLP)
RIASAT ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Nisar, J |
| Parties | RIASAT ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
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 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 P Cr (PLP) (RIASAT ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Nazam for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Evidence, appreciation of‑‑‑Accused while in custody in a murder case, led to recovery of unlicensed carbine‑‑‑House from where recovery was made was not in exclusive possession of accused‑‑‑Witnesses were not residents of locality and could not explain their presence on the spot‑‑ Statements had significant contradictions with regard to time, place and manner of recovery‑‑‑No implicit reliance could be placed on statements of such witnesses‑‑‑Acquittal was ordered in circumstances. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1991. Riasat Ali son of Ghulam Muhammad I was tried for keeping a unlicensed carbine and cartridges in his possession. Resident Magistrate, Daska convicted him under section 13(20)65 of the Arms Ordinance o 3‑12‑1986. He preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 31‑1‑1987. . Hence this revision.
2. The prosecution case is that while in custody in connection with the investigation of Case No.141/84 under section 302, P.P.C. an unlicensed carbine alongwith a live cartridge was recovered from his possession through memo. Exh.P.8 attested by Chuttan Khan P.W.1, Muhammad Bashir P.W.2 and Abdul Hamid A.S.I. P.W.3.
3. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the recovery.
4. Relying on the evidence of Chuttan Khan P.W.1, Muhammad Bashir P.W.2 and Abdul Hamid, A.S.I. P.W.3 the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as described above.
5. It is contended that there has been a gross misreading of evidence by the Courts below and that the recovery witnesses were not of the vicinity of the place of recovery although inhabited houses and shops were situated there but nobody from there was examined. There were material contradictions in the statements of the recovery witnesses with regard to the manner and mode of recovery.
6. The house from which the recovery was allegedly made was not in the exclusive possession of the petitioner and other persons also resided therein. The witnesses examined by the prosecution' to prove the recovery were not of the locality. They could not satisfactorily explain their presence at the place of recovery. There are significant contradictions in their statements with regard to the time, place and manner of recovery. In these circumstances no implicit reliance can be made on their testimony. Accordingly, I accept the revision of the petitioner, set aside his conviction and sentence and acquit him of the charge. He is discharged from the bail bonds submitted by him. S.A./R‑314/L Revision accepted.