1976 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SALEEM‑Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1976 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Kamal Mustafa Bokhary, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SALEEM‑Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1966)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1966)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Kamal Mustafa Bokhary, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SALEEM‑Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Farrukh Ameen for Appellant.
- Dates of hearing : 27th and 28tb October 1975.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ S. 13‑‑Recovery ‑‑‑ Unlicensed knife of prohibited length recovered at the instance of accused‑‑Nothing to show of recovery witnesses having any enmity to falsely implicate accused‑Conviction and sentence maintained, in circumstance‑[Recovery‑Witness]. J. V. Gardner for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑ S. 13‑‑Recovery ‑‑‑ Unlicensed knife of prohibited length recovered at the instance of accused‑‑Nothing to show of recovery witnesses having any enmity to falsely implicate accused‑Conviction and sentence maintained, in circumstance‑[Recovery‑Witness]. Farrukh Ameen for Appellant. J. V. Gardner for the State. Dates of hearing : 27th and 28tb October 1975. Muhammad Saleem, aged 25 years, Bus Conductor, was tried for the possession of a knife of prohibited length without a licence. Sh. Abdul Waheed, Sessions Judge, Multan convicted him under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months vide his judgment and order passed on 18‑7‑1974. The sentence was ordered to run concurrently with that passed in the connected murder case.
2. According to the prosecution the appellant was arrested on 12‑8‑72 In the connected murder case in which he was alleged to have caused murder of Samar Hussain and on 13‑8‑1972 he led to the recovery of a knife (P. 1) with a blade of 4 length after digging it out from under the ground from a place adjacent to wall of Pir Gobar Sultan Shah mosque, situated in Mohallah Pir Gohar Sultan Shah, Multan City. The investigating officer secured it vine memo. Exh. P. A. The recovery of knife from the appellant was proved by the Investigating Officer, Ghulam Sarwar (P. W. 2) and Muhammad Siddiq (P. W. 1), a witness from the public. The testimony of the recovery witnesses is not discrepant on any material point. None of the recovery witnesses‑had any enmity with the appellant so as to falsely implicate him. The prosecution has proved the recovery of the knife (P. 1) at the instance of the appellant. It is not the case of defence that the blade of the recovered knife is not of prohibited length and according to the prosecution the length of the blade is 4 . The appellant did not produce any licence nor had taken the defence plea that any licence was hold by him in respect of the recovered knife. The appeal has not been seriously pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant in view of the conviction of the appellant in the connected murder case. In the circumstances of the case and on the evidence on record I am satisfied that prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
3. As a result of above discussion the conviction and sentence of they appellant passed by the learned trial Judge are maintained and his appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed