1998 PLP 1034 (SCMR)
THE STATE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus BASHARAT alias SHADA‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 1034 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan, Munir A. Sheikh and Muhammad Taqi Usmani, JJ |
| Parties | THE STATE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus BASHARAT alias SHADA‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 1034 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 1034 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan, Munir A. Sheikh and Muhammad Taqi Usmani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 1034 (SCMR) (THE STATE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus BASHARAT alias SHADA‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 12th March, 1998.
- Sh. Altaf Ilahi, Additional Advocate-General Punjab instructed by Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for the State.
- 3. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate-General who has also taken us through the prosecution evidence. The conclusions arrived at by the learned Judge of the Federal Shariat Court are based on evidence. Neither any misreading nor non-reading of material piece of evidence could be pointed out. No case is, thus, made out for setting aside the judgment of acquittal.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Federal Shariat Court, dated 20‑12‑1994 passed in Criminal Appeal No.278/L of 1994). ‑‑‑‑Arts. 3 & 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 203‑F (2B)‑‑‑Appeal against acquittal‑‑‑Conclusions arrived at by Federal Shariat Court were based on evidence‑‑‑Neither any misreading nor non‑reading of any material piece of evidence could be pointed out‑‑‑No case was, thus, made out for setting aside the judgment of acquittal‑‑‑Leave to appeal was accordingly refused by Supreme Court. Sh. Altaf Ilahi, Additional Advocate‑General Punjab instructed by Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J.
Petitioner/State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 20-12-1994 of the Federal Shariat Court whereby conviction and sentences awarded to Basharat respondent under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 vide judgment dated 14-9-1994 by the trial Court were set aside and the respondent was acquitted. '
2. The acquittal was recorded after recording the conclusion that the testimony of prosecution witnesses is not confidence inspiring, these witnesses are neither coherent nor their version plausible; and that the evidence suffers from material infirmities. It was further observed as under:-- "It transpires from the statement of appellant/accused that a quarrel had taken place between Masood Khan, A.S.I., Police Station, Sadar, Okara and himself on 15-2-1992 which had ultimately led to scuffle between them and the said Masood Khan, A.S. I. had tried to fire at him with his pistol but that was snatched by the appellant from him. He has given reason of the said quarrel and has stated that it was due to the same occurrence that on the next day he was arrested from his Dera and taken to Police Station where he was implicated in this case by planting fake recovery of 1500 grams heroin which had been recovered from one Gulzar. This statement finds support from the statement of Muhammad Arshad Javed, Lumberdar who has made a statement on oath as D.W.1. This D .W. has admitted that he had given application to the police and resultantly an inquiry was conducted. He has contradicted the prosecution version that the appellant was apprehended from Chak No.4/4-L. This D.W. is Lumberdar of the area and is independent witness and is not related to the appellant/accused." Learned Judge further observed that the defence plea also finds support from the version contained in the written application submitted to D.S.P. during investigation, who appeared to support the police/prosecution version as to the place of recovery of contraband.
3. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate-General who has also taken us through the prosecution evidence. The conclusions arrived at by the learned Judge of the Federal Shariat Court are based on evidence. Neither any misreading nor non-reading of material piece of evidence could be pointed out. No case is, thus, made out for setting aside the judgment of acquittal.
4. Leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./S-54/S Leave refused