P L D 1988 Lahore 574 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD BASHIR alias DOBA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1988 Lahore 574 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Ijaz nisar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BASHIR alias DOBA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1988 Lahore 574 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1988 Lahore 574 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Ijaz nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1988 Lahore 574 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD BASHIR alias DOBA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Hussain for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 4‑‑In toxicant‑ ‑Possession‑‑ Cognizability of offence‑‑Offence of owning or possession of intoxicant would be cognizable only if committed at a public place. Hayat v. The State 1985 P Cr. L J 1353 rel. ‑‑Arts. 4, 16 & 22‑‑Criminal Procedure code (V of 1898), S.155(2) Intoxicant‑‑ Recovery‑‑‑ Recovery of intoxicant would be a non‑cognizable offence if recovery was not made from a public place requiring Police Officer to obtain order of Magistrate before entering upon its investigation. (c) Criminal procedure code (v of 1898) S. 49‑1‑ ‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979) Arts. 3, 4 & 22‑‑ Bail‑‑‑ Recovery of heroin‑‑Accused while in police custody allegedly led to recovery of heroin weighing 1,015 grams from his house‑ ‑Contended on behalf of accused, that recovery was effected from accused at a police place and offence, he was charged with becoming a ,non‑cognizable offence, Police could not arrest him and that without obtaining search warrant from Collector Prohibition Officer or Magistrate, his house could not be raided or searched‑‑ Counsel for State unable to repel said legal position Accused admitted to bail in circumstances. [p. 576) 8, C & D Mukhtar alias Karoo v. The State 1988 P Cr. L J 591 rel (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑ S. 103‑‑House search‑‑Where two or more respectable inhabitant of the locality were not associated to attend and witness the search of house of accused, the action was violative of provision of S.103 Cr.P.C. Dil Muhammad Tarar for the State.
Judgment & Decree
This is an, application for bail on. behalf of Muhammad Bashir alias who stands arrested since 15‑2‑1988 in a case under Articles 314 of the Prohibition Order, 1979 on the allegation that while police custody he led to the recovery of heroin weighing 1 015 gram from his house,
2. It is contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicate for ulterior motive and that his arrest under Article 3 was not legal because there was no evidence to the effect that he indulged import, export, manufacture or sale of heroin. The application o Article 4 is also challenged on the ground that since the allege .offence had not been committed at a public place it was non‑cognizable and the police could riot arrest him. In this context a reference ha, been made to Article 16 of the Prohibition Order, 1979. The other legal objection is that without obtaining search warrants from the Collector, Prohibition officer or Magistrate house of the petition could not be raided or searched.
3. As regards the cognizability of offence under Article 4 of the Prohibition Order, 1979 a reference may be made to Hayat v. rh State 1985 P Cr. L J 1353 where it was held that offence about owning or possessing intoxicant would be cognizable only it committee at a public place. Similar is the case of Article 3 as held in Mukhtar alias Karoo v The State 1988 P Cr. L J 591.
4. Section 155(2) Cr. P.C. places a bar on investigating a non‑cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate of the First or Second Class 'having power to try such case. Since admittedly the alleged recovery was not made from a public place the offence in the light. of the above‑quoted rulings, would be non‑cognizable requiring the 'police officer to obtain orders. of a Magistrate before entering upon its investigations. Another defect pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is non‑associating two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality where the house of the petitioner was situate to attend and witness the search/raid as required by section 10.3 Cr. P.C. Moreover no search‑warrant as envisaged by Article 22 of. the Prohibition Order, 1979 was obtained by the police from the competent authority before carrying out search of the petitioner's house,, 5. " Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has not been able to repel the above legal propositions. Accordingly, admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs. one lac with two sureties the like amount 'to the satisfaction of A.C. Saddar, Lahore. M.Y.H./M-825/L Bail granted.