1985 PLP 847 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD SAEED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 847 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SAEED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Prevention of Gambling Ordinance (VII of 1998) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 847 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Prevention of Gambling Ordinance (VII of 1998) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 847 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 847 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD SAEED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Waqar Saleem for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 31st March, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 5--Two sets of prosecution witnesses one comprised of police officials and the other from public--Public men refusing to support prosecution and appearing us defence witness--Police officers supporting prosecution case--Held, to rely on utteorroborated testimony of police officials would not be in accordance with safe administration of justice in criminal cases--Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted in circumstances. Sh. Muhammad Islam for the State.
Judgment & Decree
The facto giving rise to this revistuit ore that Muhammad Saeed and others, the petitioners were tried by Magistrate 1st Class Gujranwala under section 5 of Gambling Ordittatece. On the conclusion of the trial the petitioners were convicted under section 5 of the Gambling Ordinance and sentenced to a fine of 1(b.500, in default thereof 2 months' S.I The appeal filed by the petitioners failed on 18-6-1984.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the evidence has not been properly appreciated by the Courts below and that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt Conversely, the learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of, the Courts below.
3. Is have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the prosecution has examined witnesses namely Yaqub Ali, Moharrir Head Constable who has drawn up the F.I.R., Muhammad Ashraf, A.S.1. P.W.2 and Muhammad Afzal, A.S.I. P.W.3 have been produced to prove that the petitioners were seen gambling and that Noor Hussain, the only public man having been given up by the prosecution was examined as D.W. 1 and that he did not support the allegations against the petitioners. From the statement of facts given above, it is very much obvious that there were two sets of the prosecution witnesses. One comprised of the police officials and the other of public men and that the public man has refused to support the prosecution. That being the position I am of the view that it would not be in accordance with the safe administration of justice in criminal cases to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of police officials.
4. For what has been stated above, giving them the benefit of doubt, the petitioners are acquitted of the charge. The fine if paid shall be refunded to them. S.A. Petition accepted.