1998 PLP 409 (MLD)
SHAMROZE KHAN and another — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 409 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Shariat Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHAMROZE KHAN and another — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 409 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 409 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Shariat Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 409 (MLD) (SHAMROZE KHAN and another — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Arts. 3 & 4
Recovery having been effected from the Truck, transportation included possession
Conviction under Art.4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, therefore, was not sustainable and the accused were acquitted of that charge
Conviction under Art.3 having not been challenged the same was upheld with some reduction in the sentence of fine.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal filed by Shamroze Khan son of Zaman Khan and Hakam Ali son of Khalil-ur-Rehman, both residents of Malook Karona, Mohmand Agency is directed against the judgment dated 7-5-1996 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi whereby both of them have been convicted under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, hereinafter referred to as the said Order, and sentenced each to undergo seven years R.I., ten stripes each and a fine of Rs.50,000 or in default of payment of fine further one year S.I. each. All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently and the benefit of section 382-R, Cr.P.C has been extended to them.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. At the outset learned counsel for the appellants submitted that he does not press the appeal on merits, however, keeping in view the facts that both the appellants are very poor one being a driver and the other conductor of Truck No.MRA-4055 wherefrom the contraband was recovered -- as well as fact that they are previous non-convicts, he only prays for reduction in the sentence of fine. He also submitted that conviction of the appellants under Article 4 of the said Order is not warranted in circumstances of the case. Learned counsel for the State also conceded in this respect as well as for reduction in the sentence of fine.
3. Since the recovery was effected from the said truck and transportation also includes possession, the conviction of appellants under Article 4 of the said Order is not sustainable and is, therefore, set aside. Both the appellant are acquitted of the charge thereunder. In view of what is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants and agreed to by the learned counsel for the State, while maintaining conviction of the appellants under Article 3 of the said order, I reduce the sentence of fine to Rs.25,000 each or in default six months S.I. each. There shall be no change in the sentence of their imprisonment of seven years each which is maintained. The sentence of whipping is set aside as no more legally required after the promulgation of Act No. VII of 1996. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. extended by the trial Court shall remain intact.
4. With this modification in the conviction and sentences the appeal is partially allowed. N. H. Q./1138/FSC Order accordingly.