1990 P Cr (PLP)
RIASAT ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1990 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | RIASAT ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 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: 1990 P Cr (PLP) (RIASAT ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khan Muhammad Virk for Petitioner
Headnotes / Summary
S. 13
Defence plea that gun recovered from accused belonged to his uncle who was also travelling in the same vehicle was found to be an afterthought as the said uncle at no stage of investigation or trial moved higher authorities regarding false involvement of accused
Such suggestion put to prosecution witnesses was refuted by them
Witnesses were found confidence inspiring and no enmity or illwill was suggested to any of them qua the accused
Interference was declined by High Court.
Judgment & Decree
Khan Muhammad Virk for Petitioner The facts leading to the filing of this revision are that a case under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance was registered against the petitioner with Police Station City Sheikhupura. The allegation against him was that he was found sitting in a Suzuki-van while armed with a .12 bore gun. On enquiry, he could not produce any licence for the same. The learned Magistrate, Sheikhupura, vide his judgment dated a0-9-1987 found him guilty and convicted him to one year R.I. He appealed against his conviction and the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shcikhupura, vide judgment dated 17-5-1989. In this Revision the petitioner challenges the judgments of the Courts below. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the gun allegedly recovered from the possession of the petitioner, bclongedlto his uncle Muhammad Yaqoob who also had a licence of the same. Contends that said Muhammad Yaqoob was sitting in the same Suzuki Van and had handed over the gun to him because he wanted to light a cigarette.
2. I have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the evidence with his assistance. The witnesses were suggested that the gun belonged to one Muhammad Yaqoob who was also present in the van from where the same was recovered from the petitioner, but all the witnesses refuted the suggestion. I have noticed that said Muhammad Yaqoob who claims to be the uncle of the petitioner, at no stage of the investigation or trial made any application to the higher authorities regarding the false involvement of the petitioner. This indicates that the story put up by the dcfencc is obviously an afterthought. From the perusal of the evidence, it is clear that the witnesses are confidence inspiring. No enmity or illwill was suggested to any of them qua the petitioner. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the petition which is dismissed. N.H.Q./R-192/L Revision dismissed.