1976 PLP 72 (SCMR)
REHAN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE ‑Respondent
| Citation | 1976 PLP 72 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑ S. 13(e)‑Arms, illegal possession of‑‑One witness stating recovery of revolver to have been made from accused's loincloth while other stating revolver to be recovered from his shalwar but loin cloth appearing to have been worn inside shalwar No cross- examination, however, put on point‑Mere fact of recovery witnesses being public officers‑No reasonable ground for disbelieving them, particularly when they were never cross‑examined. Witness. |
| Bench Members | Hamoodur Rahman. C. J., Muhammad Yaqub Ali and |
| Parties | REHAN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE ‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 72 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 72 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑ S. 13(e)‑Arms, illegal possession of‑‑One witness stating recovery of revolver to have been made from accused's loincloth while other stating revolver to be recovered from his shalwar but loin cloth appearing to have been worn inside shalwar No cross- examination, however, put on point‑Mere fact of recovery witnesses being public officers‑No reasonable ground for disbelieving them, particularly when they were never cross‑examined. Witness. bench comprising: Hamoodur Rahman. C. J., Muhammad Yaqub Ali and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 72 (SCMR) (REHAN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE ‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M.I. Memon, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 24th October 1975.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, dated the 26th of May 1975 in Criminal Appeal No 91 of 1975) West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)‑ ‑‑ S. 13(e)‑Arms, illegal possession of‑‑One witness stating recovery of revolver to have been made from accused's loincloth while other stating revolver to be recovered from his shalwar but loin cloth appearing to have been worn inside shalwar No cross- examination, however, put on point‑Mere fact of recovery witnesses being public officers‑No reasonable ground for disbelieving them, particularly when they were never cross‑examined. [Witness.] Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑The petitioner has been aggrieved by an order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan maintaining his conviction and sentence under section 13(e) of the Arms Act. A revolver 38 bore was recovered from the petitioner. There are two witnesses of recovery one of whom said that the revolver was recovered fro his loin cloth while the other said it was recovered from his shalwar. It appears that the lion cloth was inside the shalwar. None of these two witnesses was cross‑examined on behalf of the petitioner. The record summoned by us has been produced and we have examined it. The mere fact that both the witne3ses of recovery are police officers no reasonable ground for disbelieving them particularly when they were never cross‑examined. There is no substance in this petition, and it is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.