1994 PLP 1261 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AZAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1261 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Sajjad Ali Shah and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AZAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1261 (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 1994 PLP 1261 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Sajjad Ali Shah and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1261 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AZAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court and Shaikh Salah ud‑Din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 15th January, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 6‑11‑1993 passed in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 1993). ‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider contentions that Courts below had grossly misread the evidence; no attempt had been made to join the public witnesses from the locality in the recovery proceedings and the police recovery witnesses had contradicted each other on material particulars and defence evidence had not been considered in proper' perspective in view of admitted enmity of the accused with Police Officers. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider contentions that Courts below had grossly misread the evidence; no attempt had been made to join the public witnesses from the locality in the recovery proceedings and the police recovery witnesses had contradicted each other on material particulars and defence evidence had not been considered in proper' perspective in view of admitted enmity of the accused with Police Officers. Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court and Shaikh Salah ud‑Din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 15th January, 1994. SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑It is the case of the prosecution that petitioner while in custody in another criminal case, disclosed and led to his shop at 1‑45 a.m. and after opening it produced Klashnikov with magazine containing 10 bullets. He had no licence, hence the case was registered against him in which he was convicted under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 by the Special Court and sentenced to R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs.20,000 or in default R.I. for 6 months. High Court has dismissed his appeal; hence this petition for leave to appeal.
2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there has been gross misreading of evidence brought on the record. Recovery witnesses are police officials and no attempt was made to join the public witnesses from locality. P.W.3 Rehmatullah A.S.I. and P.W.4 Tahir Mehmood I.O. have contradicted each other in their evidence on material particulars. According to the petitioner he was framed in a false case as he had made applications against police officers and his brother filed a writ petition against them. He produced two witnesses in defence namely D.W.1 Muhammad Amin and D.W.2 Rehmatullah, who deposed that shop was not raided by the police as alleged. Documents produced in support of defence plea Exhs. DB, DC, DE, DF, DG and DH have not been considered in proper perspective particularly when enmity is put to police officers in their cross‑examination and is admitted by them.
3. We grant leave to examine evidence in the light of contentions mentioned above. Sentence is suspended and bail is granted to the petitioner in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety and P.R. in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./M‑1977/S Leave granted.