1995 P Cr (PLP)
GHULAM MUSTAFA — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1995 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Shariat Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM MUSTAFA — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Shariat Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 P Cr (PLP) (GHULAM MUSTAFA — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 4
Delay of more than four months in sending the parcel to the Chemical Examiner's Office was not justified on the record
Such circumstance coupled with the fact that a very small quantity of heroin, weighing 11 grams only, had allegedly been recovered from the accused had made the entire recovery proceedings highly doubtful
Accused was acquitted in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Khan Mushtaq Khan for Appellant. Syed Amjad Ali for the State. Date of haring: 26th October, 1994. Ali Akbar Khan, S.H.O., Police Station Cantt. Abbottabad was on patrol duty of the area alongwith some police officials on 10-5-1990. At about 18-00 hours he was patrolling the area of Lunda Bazar near Town Hall when he recovered heroin weighing 11 grams wrapped in a paper from the side "pocket of the shirt of appellant Ghulam Mustafa. He separated one gram from the bulk as sample, sent both the parcels and written complaint to the police station and also arrested the appellant.
2. After investigation the appellant was sent up for trial before the Sessions Judge, Abbottabad, who charged him under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. 6 prosecution witnesses were examined on behalf of the State. The appellant made a statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. but he neither produced any defence evidence nor made any deposition on oath. After the conclusion of the trial the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Article 4 of the Prohibition Order and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years, to suffer 5 stripes and to pay a fine of Rs. one thousand or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. The convict has challenged his conviction and sentence by the appeal in hand, sent from jail.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out to me that although the recovery was allegedly made on 10-5-1990 but the parcel was sent to the Office of the Chemical Examiner on 16-9-1990 and no reason has been brought on the record for such inordinate delay in sending the parcel. I have minutely perused the record of the case and I find that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is correct. No reason could be found in the record to justify such a long delay in sending the parcel to the office of the Chemical Examiner. This circumstance and the fact that a very small quantity of heroin, only weighing 11 grams, was allegedly recovered from the possession of the appellant would create a strong doubt in the entire recovery proceedings.
5. Consequently the appeal is accepted. The conviction and sentence of appellant Ghulam Mustafa son of Ghulam Rasool recorded on 11-12-1993 by the learned Sessions Judge, Abbottabad are set aside. He is acquitted of the offence for which he was convicted and sentenced. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if not wanted in any other case. N.H.Q./912/FSC Appeal accepted.