2003 P Cr (PLP)
AMANULLAH — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AMANULLAH — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 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: 2003 P Cr (PLP) (AMANULLAH — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 9(c)
Police officials who were prosecution witnesses had deposed about apprehending the accused and recovery of '3 Kilograms Charas from him and taking same into possession by S.H.O., faced the test of cross-examination, but no material discrepancy could come on the record
Said S.H.O. having gone abroad, his signatures were identified by a Police Official who worked, with S.H.O. And was member of raiding party
Said Police Official could depose that he identified the writing of S.H.O.
If S.H.O. could not be examined, it had no adverse effect on the prosecution case
Report of Chemical Examiner was positive in nature
Defence advanced by the accused appeared to be afterthought and documents brought by him on the record could not provide any strength to defence version
Prosecution's case having been established and there being no misreading and non-reading of evidence on part of Trial Court, judgment whereby accused was convicted and sentenced, did not call for any interference
Conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, were maintained.
Judgment & Decree
4. When the appellant pleaded not guilty, to the charge, Mehr Khan, M.H.C. (P.W.1), Abdul Aziz, Constable (P.W.2), Shah Nawaz S.-I. (P.W.3) (recovery witness) and Muhammad Hayat, Constable (P.W.4) (another recovery .witness) came forward to prove the prosecution case. Report of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.E. was tendered in evidence.
5. When the statement of the appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C was recorded, he denied the allegation as levelled by the prosecution and professed about his innocence. He submitted his reply to a. question that as to why this 'case was registered against him and why the P. Ws deposed against him as under:-- "In fact, the police have planted this recovery against me. Nothing was recovered from my possession nor I was apprehended on the said date, time and place as alleged by the prosecution. My wife as previously made different applications against the then Police Officer Khalid Baloach and due to this grudge, the police has planted and fabricated this false case against me. My relative also filed a writ petition against S.H.O: Tahir Abbas. The narcotic weight is not according to their own case and version." He tendered in evidence a copy of writ petition against Tahir Abbas, S.H.O., which was filed by his relative and also photo copy of .an application filed against the S.H.O. and he closed his defence
6. At the conclusion of the trial, learned Judge observed that the recovery of 3 kilograms Charas has been proved to have been recovered from the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt, therefore, the appellant was convicted and sentenced under section 9(c) of the 'Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is based on misreading of evidence and actually the case of the appellant was not properly taken into consideration and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court suffers from infirmities which cannot sustain in the eyes of law and in fact the prosecution had failed, to prove its case, therefore, the judgment passed by the learned trial Court dated 25-4-2001 is liable to be set asidee.
8. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt, therefore, the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced.
9. We have taken into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
10. It appears that Shah Nawaz, .S.-I. (P.W.3) and Muhammad Hayat, Constable (P. W .4) deposed about the apprehending of the appellant and recovery of 3 kilograms Charas and taking of the same into possession by Tahir Abbas, S.H.O. vide memo. Exh.P.C. attested by them. They faced the test of cross-examination put by the learned defence counsel, but no material discrepancy could come on the record.
11. It transpired from the statement of Shah Nawaz, S.-I. (P.W.3). that Tahir Abbas, S.H.O. had gone to Bosinia due to which he could not) be examined as a prosecution witness and his signatures were identified by Shah Nawaz, S.-1. Since Shah Nawaz, S.-I. had worked alongwith Tahir Abbas, S.H.O. and he was member of raiding party, therefore, he could depose that he identifies the writing and signatures of Tahir Abbas, S.H.O. therefore, if Tahir Abbas, S.H.O. could not be examined, it had no adverse effect on the prosecution case. Report of the Chemical Examiner Exh.P.E. being positive in nature provided blood in the prosecution case.
11. On the other hand, the defence advanced by the appellant; appeared to be afterthought and the documents brought by him on the record could not provide any strength to the defence version. In other words, the prosecution case had been established and 1 that there was no show of misreading and non-reading of the evidence on the part of the learned trial Court. Being so, judgment passed by he learned trial Court calls for no-interference.
12. In view of the above discussion, we maintain the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court vide judgment, dated 25-4-2001 and this appeal is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./A-772/L Appeal dismissed