1988 P Cr (PLP)
SIBTAIN HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent'
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan and Ijaz Nisar, JJ |
| Parties | SIBTAIN HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent' |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 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 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan and Ijaz Nisar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 P Cr (PLP) (SIBTAIN HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent'). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.B. Zaman for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 3rd October, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 13‑illicit possession of arm‑‑Witnesses deposing against accused quite independent and having no motive to involve him falsely and statements made by them not suffering from any legal infirmity‑ Conviction and sentence upheld. Mrs. Yasmeen Sehgal for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.‑‑This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the 'learned Additional, Sessions Judge. Sargodha, whereby he on 10‑11‑1984 convicted Sibtain Hussain Shah appellant under section 13 of the Arms urdinanqe, 1965 and sentenced him to two years' R.I.
2. The charge against the appellant was that he was keeping unlicensed .12 bore gun Exh.P.1. He denied the charge.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced three witnesses. Manzoor Ahmad head constable p W.1 had drawn up formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A./1 Nawab Shah P.W.2 Muhammad Pervez Iqbal S.I. P.W. 3 stated that on 27‑3‑1983 the appellant had led to the recovery of unlicensed gun EXh.P.l from a room of his Dera situate in village Tarkipur.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He did not produce any witness in defence.
5. Learned counsel contends that the two eye‑witnesses namely Nawab Shah and Pervez Iqbal S.I. are not reliable. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. We find that Nawab Shah P.W.2 and Pervez Iqbal S.I. P.W.3 are quite independent witnesses. They had no motive to falsely involve the appellant in the case The statements' made by them do not suffer from any legal infirmity,
7. For what has been said above, we feel that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. M.Y.H./S‑174/L Appeal dismissed.