1990 PLP 482 (SCMR)
NASIR ABBAS and 3 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑ Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 482 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Javid Iqbal, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | NASIR ABBAS and 3 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑ Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 482 (SCMR)?
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 1990 PLP 482 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Javid Iqbal, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 482 (SCMR) (NASIR ABBAS and 3 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. M. Saeed Baig, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in all Appeals).
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17th April, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 31‑5‑1988 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Criminal Appeals Nos. 00, tit, 62 and 98 of 1988, respectively). ‑‑‑S.13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Evidence, appreciation of‑‑‑No infirmity in the findings of High Court was found‑‑‑Prosecution witness, in his statement, did not mention recovery of fire‑arm from possession of accused but testimony of Investigating Officer was against him who had no reason to have perjured himself against the accused‑‑‑No case for interference having been made out, petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
M. M. Saeed Baig, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in all Appeals). Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 17th April, 1989. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioners in these four petitions for special leave to appeal were separately tried by the Special Court for speedy trial of an offence under section 13, Arms Ordinance and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and fines of Rs.5,
000. They filed appeals which were heard by a Division Bench in the High Court. The learned Division Bench maintained their convictions and sentences and dismissed the appeals after giving a direction that they should be given the benefit of Section 382‑B, Criminal Procedure Code.
2. The case of the prosecution was that on the night between 9/10‑7‑1987 a police contingent was travelling by a wagon on the Jhang‑Chiniot Road. When it reached Chamra Mor, it found the petitioners standing on the road side. The petitioners started running. The police party chased them and after covering some distance succeeded in capturing them. From each of the four petitioners carbines with live cartridges were recovered.
3. The petitioners pleaded not guilty at the trial. They denied that any fire arm was recovered from their possession and alleged that they had been falsely implicated.
4. The case against the petitioners was supported at the trial by a Sub- Inspector of the Police who was heading the Police party and one Saeed Ahmad. The trial Court as well as the High Court found their testimony credible and held the petitioners guilty.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners who has not been able to point out any infirmity in the findings of the High Court. So far as Bhalak petitioner is concerned, Saeed Ahmad did not in his statement mention the recovery of fire‑arm from his possession. But then there is the testimony of S.I. Abdul Majid against him. There is no reason at all why S.1. Abdul Majid should have perjured himself against him. No case for interference by this Court has been made out. The petitions are dismissed. M.A.K./N‑192/S Petitions dismissed.