1987 PLP 3135 (MLD)
KHAN BAHADUR — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 3135 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan and Riaz Ahmad, JJ |
| Parties | KHAN BAHADUR — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 3135 (MLD)?
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 1987 PLP 3135 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan and Riaz Ahmad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 3135 (MLD) (KHAN BAHADUR — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. M. Latif Khan Khosa for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 19th September, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
S.13--Evidence, appreciation of--Unlicensed gun allegedly recovered from accused--No independent witness from locality joined in recovery proceedings--Only Police officials produced as witnesses--Police officials being interested in conviction of accused, conviction set aside in circumstances. Kh. Asghar for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Kh. Asghar for the State. Date of hearing: 19th September, 1987. MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.--This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, whereby he on 24-1-1984 convicted Khan Bahadur appellant under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced him to one year R.I. on the charge that he was keeping unlicensed gun Exh. P.1 on 14-3-1980.
2. To prove its case, prosecution examined Fateh Khan, Head Constable P.W.1, Abdul Hameed P. W.2 and Nazir Ahmad A. S. I., P.W.3. Abdul Hameed P.W.2 and Nazir Ahmad, A.S.I., P.W.3 stated that unlicensed Gun Exh. P.1 alongwith 6 cartridges were recovered from the possession of the appellant.
3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied incriminating circumstances. He did not produce any evidence in defence.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no independent witness was produced to prove the recovery of unlicensed Gun alongwith 6 cartridges from the appellant. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. We feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. We find that only police officials, who are naturally interested in the conviction of the appellant have been produced by the prosecution and that no independent witness from the locality was joined in the investigation or produced as a witness. In these circumstances, we feel it unsafe to maintain the conviction. For what has been said above, while giving benefit of doubt to the appellant, he is acquitted of the charge. S. A. /K-44/L Acquitted.