1985 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD RASHID Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1985 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RASHID Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
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 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
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 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD RASHID Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Muhammad Sharif for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 16th October, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Art. 11‑‑No independent witness from public produced to prove that accused was drunk‑‑Prosecution did not obtain report of Chemical Examiner‑‑Opinion of doctor as such not found to be conclusive‑‑Courts below not properly appreciated case while convicting accused‑‑Accused acquitted in circumstances. Muhammad Sharif Butt for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Kh. Muhammad Sharif for Petitioner. Muhammad Sharif Butt for the State. Date of hearing: 16th October, 1984. The facts giving rise to this petition are that Muhammad Rashid petitioner was tried by Assistant Commissioner, Saddar Sialkot, under Article 11 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 who sentenced him to 9 months' R.I. His appeal failed on 12‑9‑1984, hence this revision.
2. Learned counsel submits that prosecution has not produced any independent witnesses to prove the offence of the petitioner. Conversely the learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court.
3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that to prove the offence prosecution produced Atta Ullah A.S.I. P.W. 1 and Dr. Muhammad Nawaz Medical Officer P.W. 3, first two witnesses stated that they had found the petitioner intoxicant whereas Dr. Muhammad Nawaz opined that on examination, he found the petitioner under the influence of liquor. It is thus, very much obvious that no independent witness from the public was produced to prove that the petitioner was found drunk so much so the prosecution did not care to obtain report of the Chemical Examiner. In the circumstances of the case opinion of the Doctor does not appear to be conclusive. For all these reasons I am of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Courts below have not properly appreciated the case.
4. For what has been stated above, giving him the benefit of doubt the petitioner is acquitted of the charge. H. A. Revision accepted.